Loading summary
Transcript2 lines
- [00:00]
A
Foreign. 30th, 2026 on January 20th, 2025, the day he took the oath of office a second time, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order titled Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship. Fulfilling a campaign promise, the order declared that, Contrary to the 14th Amendment, individuals born in the United States are not citizens if their parents do not have legal permanent status. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, or aclu, and other partners, three families who represented the many people endangered by this order sued the administration. Barbara, for whom the case of Trump v. Barbara is named, is an applicant for asylum from Honduras whose baby was due after the order was set to go in into effect. Trump has called for ending birthright citizenship since his first term as part of his appeal to his racist supporters who want to end black and brown equality in the United States. But his argument would overturn the central idea of the United States articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that we are all created equal. The 14th amendment that established birthright citizenship came out of a very specific moment and addressed a specific problem. After the Civil war ended in 1865, former Confederates in the American south denied their black neighbors basic rights. To remedy the problem, the Republican Congress passed a civil rights bill in 1866 establishing that all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizens of every race and color shall have the same rights in every state and territory in the United States. But President Andrew Johnson, who was a Southern Democrat elected in 1864 on a Union ticket with President Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, vetoed the 1866 civil rights bill. While the Republican Party organized in the 1850s to fight the idea that there should be different classes of Americans based on race, Democrats tended to support racial discrimination. In that era, not only black Americans but also Irish, Chinese, Mexican, and indigenous Americans faced discriminatory state laws. In contrast to the Democrats, Republicans stated explicitly in their 1860 platform that they were opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired, and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad. When Republicans tried to enshrine civil rights into federal law in 1866, Johnson objected that the proposed law comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific states, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gypsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks as citizens. And he noted that if all persons who are native born already are by virtue of the Constitution, citizens of the United States, the passage of the pending bill cannot be necessary to make them such. And if they weren't already citizens, he wrote, Congress should not pass a law to make our entire colored population and all other excepted classes citizens of the United States. When 11 Southern states were not represented in Congress. When Congress wrote the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, it took Johnson's admonition to heart. It did not confer citizenship on the groups Johnson outlined. It simply acknowledged that the Constitution had already established established their citizenship. The first sentence of the 14th Amendment reads, 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 14th Amendment became part of the U.S. constitution in 1868. Then in 1882, during a period of racist hysteria, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion act, agreeing that Chinese immigrants could not become citizens. Nonetheless, even then, the Supreme Court upheld the citizenship of their children. Wong Kim Ark was born around 1873, the child of Chinese parents who were merchants in San Francisco. In 1889 he traveled with his parents when they repatriated to China where he married. He then returned to the US Leaving his wife behind and was readmitted after another trip to China in 1894. Though customs officials denied him re entry to the US in 1895, claiming he was a Chinese subject because his parents were Chinese. Wang sued and his lawsuit was the first to climb all the way to the U.S. supreme Court. Thanks to the government's recognition that with the US in the middle of an immigration boom, the question of birthright citizenship must be addressed. In the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision, the court held by a vote of 6 to 2 that Wong was a citizen because he was born in the United States. Immigration scholar Hidetaka Hirota of the University of California, Berkeley, explains that the government went even further to protect children born in the US in 1889, the Treasury Department, which then oversaw immigration, decided that a native born child could not be sent out of the country with her foreign born mother. Nor did the government want to hurt the US Citizen by expelling her mother and leaving her without a guardian, so it admitted the foreign born mother to take care of the citizen child. The treasury concluded that it was not the intention of Congress to sever the sacred ties existing between parent and child or forcibly banish and expatriate a native born child for the reason that its parent is a pauper. It seemed the law was settled then. In May 2023, then presidential candidate Donald J. Trump released a video promising that on day one of a new presidential term, he would issue an executive order that would end birthright supreme citizenship. He claimed that the understanding that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen is based on an historical myth and a willful misrepresentation of the law by the open borders advocates. His assertion came from recent writings by right wing operatives claiming that the accepted understanding of the 14th Amendment is wrong. As soon as he took office, he issued the executive order saying that individuals born in the United States are not citizens if their parents do not have legal permanent status. One judge after another has sided against Trump on this issue, and on April 1, 2026, when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case, Trump became the first president ever to attend such arguments. Breaking precedent to take a seat in the front row of the Supreme Court's public seating area alongside then Attorney General Pam Bondi and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. He apparently showed up at the Supreme Court to try to intimidate the three judges who owe their seats on the bench to him, pressuring them into supporting his own radical reworking of one of the key principles of our nation. He left after an hour and a half before Cecilia Wong, the ACLU lawyer arguing for the plaintiffs, began to speak. Today, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts upheld birthright citizenship. But as Jonathan V. Last of the Bulwark notes, the Supreme Court should never have taken this case. The lower court judges who heard the case were appalled that the administration was attacking the clear terms of the Constitution. Judge John Kunauer, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, called Trump's executive order blatantly unconstitutional and said, I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order. And yet the vote to uphold the 14th Amendment was not unanimous. It was six to three. And one of those six justices upholding birthright citizenship, Brett Kavanaugh, wrote that his objection to Trump's attack on birthright citizenship was based not in the Constitution, but rather in his belief that Trump's executive order violates a law. If Congress rewrote that law, he wrote, he would be willing to OOVERTURN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP.4 of 9 Supreme Court justices are willing to rewrite the Constitution by fiat, although the court's decision simply upheld the conditions that have been in place for more than a century. MAGA is treating it as a dramatic and dangerous change. Now that the Supreme Court has opened the floodgates for foreign invaders to flock across our borders and spawn, the only choice we have is to triple down on immigration enforcement, wrote right wing podcast host Matt Walsh. Militarize the border mass deportations. Round every illegal up. Don't pull back when the lesbian activists start screeching about it. Use whatever force is necessary. There is no other opt.
- [11:15]
B
Letters from an American was written and read by Heather Cox Richardson. It was produced at Soundscape Productions, Dedham, MA. Recorded with music composed by Michael Moss.