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:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

13 minutes ago

• The Hill

Hegseth says ‘Iran has a choice,' US not seeking regime change

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Sunday morning that Iran faces a choice between a negotiated settlement or an escalating conflict with the U.S. after strikes hit three nuclear sites in the country on Saturday. 'Now is the time to come forward for peace,' Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon along with Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. Dan 'Razin' Caine. 'And I think Tehran is certainly calculating the reality that planes flew from the middle of America and Missouri overnight, completely undetected over three of their most highly sensitive sites, and we were able to destroy nuclear capabilities,' he added. Caine said the damage assessment was ongoing but that all three nuclear sites targeted in the strikes sustained 'severe damage and destruction.' Trump on Saturday said the facilities had been 'obliterated.' Iran signaled little interest in diplomacy in the hours after the strikes, dubbed as Operation Midnight Hammer. 'The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences,' Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Aragaci posted on the social media site X shortly after the strikes. 'In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.' Hegseth said Saturday's strikes were limited in scope, but pointed to President Trump's warning on Truth Social that 'any retaliation by Iran against the United States will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.' The Pentagon chief said the operation was 'not and has not been about regime change' in Iran. He said it had set back Iran's nuclear timeline. Caine also provided new details about the operation during Sunday's briefing, which he called the largest B-2 bomber operation in history. He said the U.S. dropped 75 guided weapons on the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear enrichment and research sites. This included 14 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs, the first operational use of the weapon, and two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a submarine, he said. A total of 125 aircraft were involved in the mission. The B-2 bombers involved in the operation flew 37 hours non-stop from their base in Missouri, refueling in the air. Caine said that a group of the bombers had been deployed west over the Pacific Ocean as a decoy. The weapons were dropped in a window from 6:40 p.m. to 7:05 p.m. Eastern time. Trump announced the strike via a Truth Social post about 45 minutes later. The American forces appear to have gone undetected in Iranian airspace. Caine said no shots were fired at American aircraft, nor did Iran's missile defense system notice them. 'Throughout the mission, we retained the element of surprise,' he said. Hegseth said Congress was only notified of the attacks after warplanes had dropped their payload and exited Iranian airspace. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle accused the administration of violating the Constitution, which requires congressional approval before entering foreign wars. 'This is not Constitutional,' Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) tweeted as the news broke. Massie sponsored a House resolution earlier this week to require Congressional authorization for any strike in Iran. Vice President Vance, a veteran and frequent skeptic of foreign intervention, congratulated the troops and others involved in the strike on Sunday morning. 'I think what they did was accomplish a very core American national objective. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapons program,' said in an interview on ABC News.

Yahoo

18 minutes ago

• Yahoo

What the business world has to like (and not) in the Senate version of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill'

The business community has some clear wins in a Senate version of President Trump's "big, beautiful bill" but it isn't getting everything it wants. The Senate's Finance Committee's 549-page blueprint contains significant changes, especially on taxes, Medicaid funding, and clean energy. One proposal was quickly embraced by the business community: a Senate-side push to make corporate tax deductions permanent around things like interest payments and new capital investments. But a less popular idea is the survival of the so-called revenge tax that would allow the government to levy new duties on foreign nations and their businesses. That idea was introduced in the House version and sparked fears of reduced foreign investment. The version released last Monday pares back the tax but doesn't eliminate it entirely, as corporate lobbyists had asked. Specific industries also have plenty at stake from Senate changes if they make it into law. Businesses that work in clean energy will have more time to adjust to the phase-out of Biden-era credits. Restaurants and gig economy companies have more limited tax breaks for tips and overtime. Healthcare providers will also have to adjust to even steeper cuts to Medicaid's provider tax structure — perhaps the most surprising and significant overall change in the Senate version. What the Senate version of the bill doesn't appear to have — as Elon Musk and others had pushed for — is a significant change in the final price tag. Both versions are expected to add trillions of dollars to the debt. The Senate version also raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, compared with $4 trillion in the House version. The bill does have one clear cost-saving measure: slashing the annual deduction for individual state and local taxes (SALT) from $40,000 to $10,000. But that provision is described even in the bill's official summary as "the subject of continuing negotiations," with defenders of the deduction pledging to restore the full credit forthwith. The Senate version earned a quick flurry of Republican pledges — from fiscal hawks to defenders of those SALT deductions to those who object to the Medicaid cuts — to vote no if the final version isn't changed to their liking. "We're not seriously addressing our long-term deficit and debt," Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin told reporters soon after the unveiling, reiterating that he remains a no. The back and forth comes just weeks ahead of Republicans' self-imposed deadline to get the bill to the president's desk by July 4. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said sticking to that timeline means Senate passage by the end of this coming week. Ed Mills of Raymond James offered in a note that "we continue to view the July 4 target as ambitious" — suggesting that SALT and Medicaid provisions in particular could be under continued debate in the days ahead. Here is a closer look at some of the major business world changes being proposed by the Senate: A key focus for business owners is a series of tax deductions that will reinstate credits for corporations around things like property depreciation, capital investments, new factory construction, interest expenses, and research and development costs. These provisions were present in the House version but only temporarily. Permanency was a key Senate priority once they took over, even as it is expected to increase the price tag. The bill "powers the economy by permanently extending critical pro-growth provisions and introduces new incentives for domestic investment, providing certainty for American job creators to spur domestic economic activity and invest in their workers," offered Senate Finance Committee Chairman Mike Crapo as he unveiled these provisions. The Senate version also enhances credits for "opportunity zones," which provide tax relief in rural and distressed communities. The bill also includes Trump's campaign promises of no taxes on tips and overtime, but in a more limited form. Employees would be able to deduct up to $25,000 annually for tips and overtime, in contrast to the House's approach of 100% deductibility under certain income limits. The Senate blueprint also includes a rollback of clean energy credits for things like solar panels and electric vehicles. The changes in the Senate would make that phaseout slower — zeroing out some key credits by 2028 — but with a bottom line that Republicans across the spectrum are united in eliminating these benefits entirely. Amy Hanauer, executive director of the left-leaning Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, reacted to the released proposal by saying that "the emerging clean energy economy will be curtailed and for what?" "Our communities will be worse off as a result of this legislation,' she added. On the fossil fuel side, the Senate bill continues to include changes to make permitting less laborious, open up new lease sales, and reverse a fee on excess methane emissions. The Senate bill also includes a controversial plan to limit the ability of states to regulate artificial intelligence. The Senate's provisions are less airtight, stopping short of the outright ban proposed by the House, but are expected to remain a point of contention and potentially an issue for the Senate parliamentarian, given the Senate's complex reconciliation rules. Other changes in the bill appear to cut against business interests at least slightly. The Senate bill makes permanent the so-called pass-through deduction — formally called a 199A deduction for small businesses — but at the current rate of 20%. The House version also had permanency, but at a higher rate of 23%. Meanwhile, a clear focus of business lobbyist ire has remained in the bill, but in a slightly diminished form: the so-called revenge tax. This idea would allow a president to punish companies and countries if they adhere to foreign laws that policymakers find objectionable. In Trump's case, things like the digital services taxes that often hit tech companies overseas. The Senate version, in a nod to the flurry of concerns, set a maximum rate of 15% and delayed implementation until 2027 but kept the concept intact. In addition to that tax, the SALT and Medicaid changes are likely to be most in focus in the days and weeks ahead. Tobin Marcus of Wolfe Research noted Tuesday morning that "SALT changes underscore the reality that this is another step forward in negotiations, not the final answer." He added that "we still view late July as the real deadline." This story has been updated. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Miami Herald

25 minutes ago

• Miami Herald

Donald Trump's SNAP Benefit Cut Plans Suffer Blow

A plan by Republicans to shift a portion of federal food stamp costs to state governments suffered a major setback after the Senate parliamentarian found it would violate chamber rules. The blocked provision was an attempt to reduce federal spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), affecting more than 40 million low-income Americans who rely on food aid. The shift would have transferred major SNAP costs to the states, requiring them to pay at least 5 percent—and potentially more—of benefit costs, which analysts warned could result in significant cuts to nutrition support. The parliamentarian's decision places additional pressure on the bill's champions to find alternative means to fund tax cuts without imperiling food assistance, Medicaid, or other federal support programs. The provision, a cornerstone of Republican efforts to offset the costs of President Donald Trump's multitrillion-dollar tax and spending legislation, has been ruled inadmissible under Senate rules, sending GOP leaders scrambling to revise the mega bill. The ruling, issued by Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, came as the package prepared for a vote. While her opinions are advisory, they are rarely ignored in lawmaking practice. Republican lawmakers are now searching for new savings as they continue to advance Trump's legislative priorities despite the setback. MacDonough declared the SNAP cost-sharing plan noncompliant with the chamber's budget reconciliation rules, specifically the Byrd Rule, which bars certain policy measures from being attached to budget bills. The proposal would have shifted billions of dollars in SNAP costs from the federal government to the states, creating a new fiscal obligation for state governments and threatening coverage for millions. House Passes Bill with GOP SNAP Cuts The House passed the broader tax and spending package along party lines in May 2025, including a provision to require states to fund at least 5 percent of SNAP benefits and more for high error rates. The House-passed measure's SNAP provision was projected to save about $128 billion. Republican leaders had hoped these savings would help offset the bill's $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and new spending. Other Key Provisions Beyond SNAP, the package includes an extension and expansion of individual and business tax cuts, new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, cuts to federal health and nutrition programs, increased military and border security funding, and the elimination of taxes on tips for service workers. GOP Paths Forward Republican leaders, including Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman of Arkansas, said they were exploring options to keep the legislation on track while still delivering savings elsewhere. Options range from modifying the disputed SNAP provision to removing it entirely or risking a procedural vote requiring 60 votes—an unlikely scenario in the current Senate. Impact on SNAP Recipients The plan would have expanded work requirements to older adults (up to age 65), a component that remains in the bill for now. Democrats and anti-hunger advocates warned of significant harm to those in need, with more than 3 million individuals projected to lose food stamp access based on Congressional Budget Office estimates. Additional Rulings Expected The Senate parliamentarian is also expected to rule on other elements in the bill, including limits on immigrant eligibility for nutrition aid and changes to federal agencies, with further decisions likely to shape the final legislation. Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, said: "We will keep fighting to protect families in need," opposing shifts in SNAP costs to states, which she said would result in significant benefit cuts. Arkansas Senator John Boozman, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said Republicans are "exploring options" to comply with Senate rules, while supporting those reliant on SNAP. Senate Republicans are expected to revise the bill to comply with the parliamentarian's rulings or drop the contested SNAP provisions. Further decisions from the adviser on other elements of the megabill are anticipated before any final Senate vote. This article contains reporting from The Associated Press. Related Articles When Are July 2025 SNAP Payments Coming?Republicans Out Of Step With Voters On Medicaid FundingNew York State Facing Lawsuit Over SNAP BenefitsSNAP Recipients Get Extra Money This Month in California 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.