As the debate over birthright citizenship reignites in the United States, President Donald Trump’s recent statements have thrust the Fourteenth Amendment back into the national spotlight. At a press conference celebrating a Supreme Court decision that partially cleared the way for his administration to limit birthright citizenship, Trump claimed the amendment was intended only for the children of enslaved people, not for the children of immigrants. But a close examination of the historical record, the constitutional text, and Supreme Court precedent reveals that Trump’s interpretation is not only inaccurate but fundamentally at odds with the intent of the amendment’s framers and over a century of American legal tradition.
The Fourteenth Amendment: Clear Language, Clear Intent
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, opens with a sweeping declaration:
“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 language is unambiguous. The vast majority of legal scholars, historians, and even the Supreme Court have long understood this clause to confer citizenship on nearly everyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ nationality or immigration status. The only explicit exceptions are the children of foreign diplomats, enemy occupiers, and certain Native Americans who maintained sovereign tribal status at the time.
The Historical Record: Congressional Intent and Debate
Trump and his supporters argue that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed solely to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved Black people and their descendants, not to immigrants’ children. But the congressional debates from 1866 tell a different story.
Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, who drafted the citizenship language, stated plainly that the amendment was “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.” He clarified that the only exceptions were children of foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers.
The Senate debates further illuminate the framers’ intent. Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania expressed concern that the amendment would make the children of Chinese immigrants and Roma (“Gypsies”) ineligible for citizenship. In response, Senator John Conness of California, a supporter of the amendment, confirmed that the provision was indeed meant to include the children of immigrants, regardless of their parents’ origins. The record is clear: the framers understood and intended for birthright citizenship to apply broadly, not narrowly.
Supreme Court Precedent: United States v. Wong Kim Ark
The Supreme Court settled this issue decisively in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were barred from naturalization under the Chinese Exclusion Act. After a trip abroad, he was denied reentry to the U.S., prompting a legal battle over his citizenship. The Court ruled 6–2 that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to virtually all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents’ nationality or immigration status.
This landmark decision has stood for more than a century as the bedrock of American citizenship law. It affirms that the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment is not limited to the children of freed slaves but extends to all children born in the United States except for the narrow exceptions outlined by the framers.
Trump’s Arguments: A Historical and Legal Misreading
Trump’s argument rests on two flawed premises:
- “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes immigrant children.
This phrase was debated extensively by the amendment’s framers, who made clear it was meant to exclude only those not subject to U.S. law—namely, diplomats and enemy occupiers—not immigrants, who are fully subject to American law. - The amendment was only about freed slaves.
While the primary impetus for the Fourteenth Amendment was to overturn the Black Codes and guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people, the congressional record shows that lawmakers were fully aware the amendment would also grant citizenship to the children of immigrants. Even those who opposed the amendment did so because they recognized its broad application.
The Patchwork Threat: Legal Uncertainty and Unequal Rights
The Supreme Court’s recent decision did not directly address the constitutionality of Trump’s order to deny passports and Social Security cards to immigrant children. Instead, it limited the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, opening the door to a patchwork of legal outcomes across the country. Legal experts warn that this could result in uneven enforcement, with some states upholding birthright citizenship and others allowing Trump’s order to take effect creating confusion, fear, and unequal rights for families nationwide.
The Broader Implications: Who Is an American?
Trump’s reading of the Fourteenth Amendment would not only affect the children of today’s immigrants but would also call into question the citizenship of tens of millions of Americans whose ancestors arrived in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Many of these immigrants never naturalized, yet their American-born children were recognized as citizens. If Trump’s interpretation had prevailed, generations of Americans, including the descendants of European, Asian, and other immigrants, would have been denied citizenship.
Originalism and the Constitution: The Historical Verdict
If the Supreme Court’s conservative majority is serious about originalism, interpreting the Constitution according to the understanding of its framers, then the historical record leaves no doubt. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to grant birthright citizenship to all persons born on U.S. soil, with only narrow exceptions.
The Enduring Promise of Birthright Citizenship
Birthright citizenship has been a cornerstone of American identity and legal tradition for over 150 years. It is a principle rooted in the Constitution, affirmed by the Supreme Court, and supported by the clear intent of the lawmakers who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment. Attempts to rewrite this history not only misrepresent the law but threaten to unravel the very fabric of American society.
As the debate continues, it is essential to remember that the promise of the Fourteenth Amendment is not just a legal technicality it is a profound statement about who belongs in America. History, law, and justice are all on the side of birthright citizenship. And that, above all, is what makes America truly exceptional.
