Trump Says Birthright Citizenship Is Only 'About the Babies of Slaves.' Historical Evidence Says Otherwise.
During the recent oral arguments in Trump v. Casa, Solicitor General John Sauer repeatedly defended President Donald Trump's executive order stripping birthright citizenship from millions of U.S.-born children on the grounds that the 14th Amendment "extended citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to people who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States." Unfortunately for Sauer and his boss, the historical evidence tells a different story.
On May 30, 1866, the U.S. Senate kicked off its debate on the Citizenship Clause of the proposed 14th Amendment, which 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."
The first opponent to speak was Sen. Edgar Cowan (R–Penn.), who objected to the 14th Amendment on the grounds that it would bestow U.S. citizenship on the children of unpopular immigrants. "Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?" Cowan demanded. "Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese?"
Cowan also worried about the presence of "Gypsies" in Pennsylvania. "They wander in gangs in my State," he declared. "These people live in the country and are born in the country. They infest society." Are their children also to be granted birthright citizenship by the language of the amendment? "If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right," Cowan complained, "then they will have it; and I think it will be mischievous."
Sen. John Conness (R–Calif.) then rose to speak in response to Cowan. "I beg my honorable friend from Pennsylvania to give himself no further trouble on account of the Chinese in California or on the Pacific coast," he said. "We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."
Note that Cowan and Conness both agreed on the meaning of birthright citizenship. They only disagreed about whether or not that meaning would produce a welcome result. And note also that their shared original understanding runs counter to the position now advanced by the Trump administration.
In that same 1866 speech, Conness also pointed out that he had already joined a majority of Congress in voting for birthright citizenship once before. "The proposition before us," he said, "relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation."
Conness was referring here to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which Congress had passed in April over the veto of President Andrew Johnson. Why did Johnson veto it? Among "the provisions I cannot approve," Johnson wrote, was the first section of the law, in which "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States."
It was bad enough, according to Johnson, that this statutory guarantee of birthright citizenship would make citizens "out of the entire race designated as blacks." In his view, "four million of them have just emerged from slavery to freedom. Can it be reasonably supposed that they possess the requisite qualifications to entitle them to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States?" But Johnson also objected to the fact that the Civil Rights Act would make citizens out of the children of "the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, [and] the people called Gipsies." Just like Cowan and Conness, Johnson also understood that birthright citizenship would apply to the U.S.-born children of unpopular immigrants.
Trump may think that birthright citizenship is only "about the babies of slaves." But as these statements from the 1866 debates make clear, the historical evidence proves him wrong.
The post Trump Says Birthright Citizenship Is Only 'About the Babies of Slaves.' Historical Evidence Says Otherwise. appeared first on Reason.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Upturn
35 minutes ago
- Business Upturn
Trump announces ‘very positive' call with Xi Jinping, says rare earth dispute resolved
By Aditya Bhagchandani Published on June 5, 2025, 20:22 IST United States President Donald Trump on Thursday said he had a 'very good' and detailed phone conversation with Chinese President Xi Jinping, primarily focused on trade issues, including the complexities surrounding rare earth products. Trump said the call lasted nearly one and a half hours and concluded positively for both countries. Posting on Truth Social, Trump shared that the two leaders discussed the implementation of their recently agreed trade deal, which has been under scrutiny after Trump accused Beijing of backtracking on tariff commitments. Trump reiterated that while he respects Xi, he finds him 'extremely hard to make a deal with.' Trump said, 'There should no longer be any questions respecting the complexity of Rare Earth products,' indicating that previous concerns on rare earth supply chains might now be resolved. He confirmed that trade delegations from both nations will meet soon, with the U.S. side to be represented by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. The exact location and timing will be announced later. The Chinese state-run Xinhua News Agency also confirmed the call was made at Trump's request. Trump noted that Xi extended an invitation for him and the First Lady to visit China, which he accepted. Trump emphasized that the call strictly focused on trade and excluded topics like Russia-Ukraine or Iran. Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.
Axios
36 minutes ago
- Axios
Exclusive: Dems press Trump admin. for response to China-backed cyberattacks
A group of Democratic lawmakers are pressing the Trump administration to clarify who is leading the government's efforts to eradicate China-backed hackers from U.S. critical infrastructure and telecom networks. Why it matters: Roughly 1,000 people have already left the nation's top cyber agency this year through voluntary buyouts and other workforce cuts. Those cuts could create dangerous weaknesses in the nation's cyber defenses, the lawmakers argue in a letter exclusively shared with Axios. Zoom in: Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) sent a letter today to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard demanding more clarity on who is leading the response against two major China-backed cyberattacks uncovered during the Biden administration. Democratic Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi, Kathy Castor, Ro Khanna, Haley Stevens, Shontel Brown and Jill Tokuda joined Torres as signatories. The lawmakers are also requesting Noem and Gabbard provide an update on any ongoing investigations into both the Volt Typhoon attacks on U.S. critical infrastructure and the Salt Typhoon campaign to surveil high-profile individuals' cell phones. The group is also asking for an update on how proposed budget cuts and the recent workforce reductions at CISA will impact those investigations. What they're saying: "This is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of grave consequence for the security of America both at home and abroad," the lawmakers write. "We owe it to the American people to protect them from the specter of a cyber 9/11 at the hands of our most formidable foreign adversary." Threat level: For years, top American officials have been warning about increasing cyber threats from China. China-backed Volt Typhoon has been prepositioning in critical infrastructure — such as water utilities, power plants and railways — for at least five years, according to congressional testimony. Salt Typhoon, another Chinese government-backed group, was caught hacking into several high-profile politicians' phones last year, including President Trump's. "Somewhere, Xi Jinping is smiling at America's insistence on degrading its own cyber capabilities," the lawmakers write.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk is gone, but DOGE's actions are hard to reverse. The Institute of Peace is a case study
WASHINGTON (AP) — The staff was already jittery. The raiders from Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency had disposed of the U.S. Institute of Peace board, its acting president and its longtime outside counsel. But until 9:30 p.m. on March 28, there was hope the damage might be limited. Then termination notices started popping up in personal emails. As he departs, Musk is leaving behind a wounded federal government. DOGE's playbook has been consistent: Take over facilities, information technology systems and leadership. Dismiss the staff. Move too quickly for the targets or courts to respond or fix the damage. Thousands of federal workers have seen the playbook unfold. What makes USIP, a 300-employee organization, unique is the blitz during its takeover has been, for the moment, reversed in court. The headquarters taken away in a weekend of lightning moves is back in the hands of its original board and acting president. The question they must answer now is a point that U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell made during one hearing: Can USIP be restored? 'A bull in a China shop breaks a lot of things,' she said. As the institute tries to reboot, it's a question for others in their own DOGE struggles. Targeting an agency aimed at fostering peace USIP was created by Congress in the 1980s. Described as an independent, nonprofit think tank funded by Congress, its mission has been to work to promote peace and prevent and end conflicts. When DOGE came knocking, it was operating in 26 conflict zones, including Afghanistan. The institute was one of four organizations targeted by President Donald Trump's Feb. 19 Executive Order 14217. Despite conversations to explain the organization's role, most of the Institute's board was fired by email March 14. The lone holdovers were ex officio — Cabinet members Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio and the National Defense University's president. Within minutes of the 4 p.m. emails, DOGE staff showed up and tried to get into the building but were turned back. That, according to court documents, kicked off a weekend of pressure by the FBI on institute security personnel. DOGE returned the following Monday and got into the headquarters with help from the FBI and Washington police. Outside counsel George Foote thought the local officers were there to expel the DOGE contingent but learned quickly they were not. He, security chief Colin O'Brien and others were escorted out by local authorities. 'They have sidearms and tasers and are saying you can't go anywhere but out that door,' Foote said. The board filed a lawsuit the following day. Howell expressed dissatisfaction with DOGE's tactics but she let their actions stand. By then a DOGE associate, Kenneth Jackson, had been named as acting president of the organization by the ex officio board members. The staff knew what he'd done as the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Now Jackson was at the institute, but they were hopeful 'we would have a process of explanation or review of our work,' said Scott Worden, director of the Afghanistan and Central Asia programs. Then came March 28. By midnight, nearly all the institute's employees had been let go. The actions reverberated The impact was 'profound and devastating,' Worden said. First, employees at the institute are not government employees so they got no government benefits or civil service protections. Insurance also was gone. Partners abroad suddenly lost their support and contacts. The lawyers representing board members in their lawsuit sought a hearing to head off rumors of more mayhem to come. But when they walked into a courtroom the headquarters and other assets were gone, too. It was, Howell said at the hearing, 'a done deal.' Over the weekend, DOGE had replaced Jackson with fellow DOGE associate Nick Cavanaugh, whose name was on the documents that allowed DOGE to take control of institute assets and transfer the headquarters to the General Services Administration. In court, the Trump administration's attorney laid out the timeline, making clear the newly named president of USIP had not only been authorized to transfer the property but also the request had gone through proper channels. Throughout hearings, Howell struggled with describing the organization — whether it was part of the executive branch and under Trump's authority. The government argued it had to fall under one of the three branches of government and clearly wasn't legislative or judicial. Lawyers defending the government also said that because presidents appointed the board, presidents also had the authority to fire them. Howell's May 19 opinion concluded the institute 'exercises no Executive branch power under the Constitution.' She added that the law that created it set specific steps for firing the board members and none of those had been followed. The case is now with an appeals court. What it looks like now Two weeks later, about 10% of the people who would normally be inside the headquarters are doing maintenance, getting systems running and trying to access the institute's funding. Desks are empty but with paperwork and files strewn across them, left by the speed of the takeover. O'Brien, the security officer, praised the General Services Administration and security managers who tried to keep the building going. But getting systems fully functioning will entail lots of work. Foote said some returnees are trying to access the institute's funding, including money appropriated by Congress and the part of the endowment moved during the takeover. He said transferring funds within the federal government is 'complicated.' The result: Workers are furloughed, and overseas offices will remain closed. Nicoletta Barbera, acting director for the U.S. Institute of Peace's West Africa and Central Africa programs, is one of the furloughed workers. 'We had USIP representatives based in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger that, overnight, were left with no support system from anyone here in HQ,' she said. Barbera said a recent attack in Burkina Faso ended with 'hundreds of atrocities and deaths.' 'And I couldn't just stop but think, what if I could have continued our work there during this time?' she said. Moose has said there will likely be lasting damage — on traumatized staff and relationships with partners around the world. 'That's going to be hard to repair,' he said.
