The contemporary debate over birthright citizenship—centered on the January 2025 executive order, the anticipated legal challenge, and the posture of religiously affiliated amici—recasts older questions about who belongs and who is protected by the state. Yet the legal and moral logic of such debates has historical antecedents. Sacramento Orphanage & Children’s Home v. Chambers stands as an early and instructive example of a court grappling with whether parental status may be used to differentiate access to public benefits for native-born children. This paper reads that decision alongside the modern dispute to illuminate how courts have, over more than a century, defended or disputed the principle that citizenship carries obligations—ones that should not be erased by parental immigration status. The paper argues for a more nuanced understanding of “birthright” that foregrounds equal protection, the public role in child welfare, and the moral claims of vulnerable children within the citizenship framework.