Protecting Minorities from De Facto Statelessness proposals mirror the effect of 2010 changes to jus soli in the Dominican Republic as they apply to the children of undocumented immigrants, which have led to an increase in cases of de facto statelessness among native-born children.33 Most US legal analysts believe that a constitutional amendment would be required to alter US territorial birthright citizenship and that there is insufficient political support to realise this constitutional change in the United States.34 THE BIRTHRIGHT AT THE ORIGINS OF AMERICAN POLITICAL MEMBERSHIP In the United States, efforts to restrict jus soli birthright citizenship have centred on reinterpreting the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which currently allows nearly every person born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including the children of unauthorised immigrants, to become US citizens at birth.35 In their book Citizenship Without Consent (1985), which still influences the debate about birthright citizenship in the United States, Peter Schuck and Rogers M Smith argued that ‘America’s liberal democracy is based on the notion of political membership by consent and that [birthright citizenship] for aliens is inconsistent with this commitment’.36 Political debates concerning jus soli birthright citizenship are so heated because they have broader implications for immigration policy and those who oppose Schuck and Smith’s argument fear that policymakers will use it to deny US citizenship to the children of unauthorised immigrant parents.37 Schuck and Smith have since moderated their critique of jus soli citizenship, both as a normative and interpretive matter. With the repeated failure of legislation to repeal birthright citizenship in the US, Smith contends that ‘the nation can be said to have effectively consented to a reading of the Fourteenth Amendment that confers jus soli birthright citizenship on children of aliens never legally admitted to the United States’.38 Similarly, Schuck now argues that Congress’ lack of collective ‘inclination to eliminate the traditional rule’ reflects ‘the advantages of the traditional rule’ of territorial birthright citizenship, ‘which is clear, easily administered, inclusive, and avoids illegal status for the future generations of long-term residents’.39 A Calvin’s Case: The Origins of Birthright Citizenship Birthright citizenship in the United States is rooted in a practice developed in England and transferred to America during the colonial period. The modern practice of birthright citizenship can be traced back to Calvin v Smith (1608), a case arising out of a disputed right to inheritance occasioned by the union between 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Polly Price, ‘Jus Soli and Statelessness: A Comparative Perspective from the Americas’ in Benjamin Lawrence and Jacqueline Stevens (eds), Citizenship in Question: Evidentiary Birthright and Statelessness (Duke University Press 2017) 27, 31. Christian Joppke, Citizenship and Immigration (Polity Press 2010) 38; Dauvergne (n 7) 20, 103–105. Elizabeth F Cohen, ‘Reconsidering US Immigration Reform: The Temporal Principle of Citizenship’ (2011) 9(3) Perspectives on Politics 575, 575. Peter Schuck and Rogers M Smith, Citizenship without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity (Yale University Press 1985). Leo Chavez, Anchor Babies and the Challenge of Birthright Citizenship (Stanford University Press 2017) 13. Rogers M Smith, ‘Birthright Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and 2008’ (2009) 11(5) University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law 1329, 1331. Peter Schuck, One Nation Undecided: Clear Thinking about Five Hard Issues that Divide Us (Princeton University Press 2017) 168–69. 71