The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, long interpreted to grant birthright citizenship to immigrant children born in the U.S., has become a focal point of debate following President Donald Trump’s remarks questioning its applicability.
“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.” This opening line of the Fourteenth Amendment has been traditionally understood by legal scholars as conferring citizenship on anyone born on U.S. soil, including the children of immigrants. However, President Donald Trump recently challenged this interpretation, claiming the amendment was intended only for descendants of enslaved individuals.
During a press conference celebrating a Supreme Court decision that partly allows the administration to push forward with ending birthright citizenship, Trump asserted, “This had to do with the babies of slaves.” While the ruling addressed lower courts’ limits to block the policy nationwide, Trump’s larger legal goal faces further challenges. He insists the framers of the amendment never intended it to apply to immigrant children.
The Fourteenth Amendment, indeed, was primarily drafted to secure rights for formerly enslaved people, as the post-Civil War era saw ex-Confederate states enacting laws severely restricting the freedoms of newly freed Black Americans. The Black Codes, as they were known, effectively sought to maintain slavery in all but name through restrictive regulations on labor, property ownership, and other civil rights.
To counteract these abuses, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 over President Andrew Johnson’s veto, granting rights and citizenship to Black residents in the South. Recognizing these protections might not endure under changing political climates, lawmakers sought to enshrine them constitutionally in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Trump’s objections rest on two points: an interpretation of the amendment’s phrasing around jurisdiction and a belief that it was never intended to cover immigrant children. Critics of Trump’s perspective point to the framers’ intentions as evidence against his claims.
Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, who drafted the amendment’s language, articulated its purpose was to declare that every person born in the U.S. was a citizen. He clarified, however, that the provision did not apply to children of foreign diplomats, indicating that other immigrant groups were included.
This understanding is further illustrated during Senate debates. Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania expressed fears that the amendment would lead to demographic upheaval by granting citizenship to immigrant children. His concerns, voiced during discussions, were especially focused on the Roma community in Pennsylvania and Chinese immigrants in California. However, Senator John Conness of California defended the amendment, stating it would rightfully include children of Chinese immigrants.
Though Cowan’s apprehensions highlighted racial and ethnic biases of the time, the broader consensus among the amendment’s supporters, both then and in judicial interpretations such as the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision, was that birthright citizenship was meant for all born on U.S. soil, regardless of parental nationality.
The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark upheld that individuals born in the U.S. to immigrant parents were citizens, setting a crucial precedent that remains today. Despite Trump’s stance, the recent court decision did not directly support his interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, it addressed procedural aspects, limiting lower courts from issuing broad injunctions, effectively opening pathways to potentially uneven application across states.
Trump’s reading challenges the way millions of American families of European descent historically acquired citizenship. While current debates center on Asian or other non-European immigrant communities, European immigrants benefited from broad interpretations of existing laws. The framers focused then on the citizenship eligibility of Asian immigrants, not Europeans, under the original 1790 Naturalization Act provisions.
If Trump’s interpretation prevailed, the American identity and citizenship path for many with immigrant ancestors would be in question. The historical record, however, underscores a longstanding recognition of birthright citizenship as foundational to America’s national identity, bridging diverse origins under one citizenry.
Legal experts assert that the history is clear: the Fourteenth Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause was intended to be inclusive. Originalism, a judicial philosophy favored by conservatives, emphasizes interpreting the Constitution as understood at its inception, and within this framework, the historical context affirms the broader application of the citizenship clause.
For now, as legal battles continue, the understanding established since 1868 – that birthright citizenship applies to all born in the U.S. – remains valid, although its future is potentially at the mercy of ongoing legal interpretations and political intentions.
Source: Original article