'TELL IT LIKE IT IS' Magazine Fact Check: History Disproves Trump’s Claims on Birthright Citizenship

At the time of its adoption, lawmakers recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment extended birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.

“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.”

That’s the opening line of the Fourteenth Amendment. For generations, the overwhelming consensus among legal scholars has been that this clause grants citizenship to children born in the U.S., including those of immigrants. But President Donald Trump disagrees.

“This had to do with the babies of slaves,” Trump claimed at a press conference yesterday, where he celebrated a Supreme Court ruling that partially clears the way for his administration to challenge birthright citizenship. The ruling, however, did not address the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself — only whether lower courts can issue nationwide injunctions against federal policies.

According to Trump and his supporters, Congress never intended the amendment to apply to the children of immigrants — only to formerly enslaved people and their descendants.

However, constitutional scholars argue that the plain text of the amendment directly contradicts this claim. So does the historical record — something originalist justices, who advocate interpreting the Constitution as it was understood at the time of its drafting, should take seriously.

There’s no need to speculate about what lawmakers intended when they passed the Fourteenth Amendment. They made their views clear — and it’s not what Trump wants to hear.

President Trump is right about one thing: The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment primarily sought to secure citizenship for formerly enslaved Black Americans. In the wake of the Civil War, Southern states passed so-called “Black Codes” — laws designed to restrict the rights of freedmen and reassert white supremacy. These codes criminalized everyday Black life, requiring labor contracts, barring certain occupations, and denying basic legal protections.

In response, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, granting citizenship and civil rights to Black Americans. To solidify these protections, lawmakers moved to enshrine them in the Constitution through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now, Trump argues the amendment does not apply to children of immigrants. His case rests on two flawed claims:

1. That the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes immigrant children, and
2. The amendment’s intent was solely to address the status of freed slaves and their descendants.

But the historical record says otherwise.

Senator Jacob Howard, who authored the citizenship clause, clarified that it excluded only children of foreign diplomats — not immigrants. During Senate debate, Senator Edgar Cowan voiced fears about granting citizenship to children of Chinese and Roma immigrants. In response, Senator John Conness explicitly affirmed that children born in the U.S. to immigrant parents, including Chinese immigrants, would be citizens under the amendment.

The amendment’s opponents, including Cowan, understood its broad application and voted against it for that very reason. The debate focused more on Native Americans, who were then considered outside U.S. jurisdiction due to treaty rights, not immigrants.

The Supreme Court confirmed this understanding in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), ruling that children born on U.S. soil are citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status. Wong, born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents, was denied reentry after a trip abroad. The Court’s 6–2 decision affirmed his citizenship, cementing the principle of birthright citizenship as constitutional law.

Trump’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment not only contradicts the framers’ intent — it’s been rejected by Congress, the courts, and over a century of legal precedent.

The Supreme Court’s decision last week did not affirm former President Donald Trump’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment but instead narrowed the authority of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. The ruling allows Trump-era policies — including an executive order denying passports and Social Security cards to U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants — to take effect in some jurisdictions while remaining blocked in others.

Legal scholars warn that the move could result in a fragmented legal landscape, where birthright citizenship protections vary by state, deepening uncertainty for immigrant families and opening the door to unequal treatment under the law.

Although the Court has yet to rule directly on the constitutionality of Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship, his argument raises sweeping questions about the legal status of millions of Americans. Historically, the Fourteenth Amendment’s framers intended it to grant citizenship to children born on U.S. soil — including those of immigrants. Critics note that under Trump’s interpretation, even descendants of early European immigrants — including many who never naturalized — could have been denied citizenship.

With the Court likely to revisit the issue, experts say the future of birthright citizenship — a principle enshrined since 1868 — is now uncertain.

======

-- By Andréa Mochida

© Copyright 2025 JWT Communications. All rights reserved. This article cannot be republished, rebroadcast, rewritten, or distributed in any form without written permission.