S1: Welcome in San Diego. It's Jade Hindman on today's show. The Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship , will break down the 14th amendment and the questions America is still grappling with around citizenship. This is KPBS Midday Edition. Connecting our communities through conversation. Earlier this morning , the Supreme Court ruled to uphold automatic birthright citizenship for all people born in the United States. It reminds us there's a long history of people who fought for citizenship and the rights it guarantees. So what do we know about those legal and historical precedents and what it means for our understanding of citizenship today? Well , my next two guests are here to help break that down. I'm joined now by Veronica martinez Matsuda. She's an associate professor of history at UC San Diego. Also with us is Gabriel Jack Chen , a professor at UC Davis School of Law. Professor Martinez Matsuda and Professor Chen , welcome to Midday Edition.
S2: Thank you.
S3: Thank you. Good afternoon. Yes.
S1: Yes. Well , I'm so glad that you all are able to join us. I want to start by asking. I mean , what are your immediate reactions to this ruling? Professor Chen , I'll start with you.
S2: Well , I was surprised that it was so close , given the clarity of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and the strength of the precedent. Uh , in some ways it was a five four decision. Although seven justices voted to strike down part of the executive order. So that's one initial impression. Another impression is this is the sort of clarity and , and power and um , Um force of the majority opinion. The five justice opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts that says that the executive order denying birthright citizenship to a bunch of um , large categories of non-citizens is unconstitutional. And hopefully this puts the legal issue to rest for a generation or two.
S1: Um , professor Martinez Matsuda , what about you? What went through your mind as you learned of the decision?
S3: Well , I think in a similar way , I was sort of grateful that the decision concluded , as most legal scholars expected , given the constitutionality of the matter , but also sort of a reminder that citizenship is a fraught status that needs to be upheld , you know , and protected , and that the promises of something like the 14th amendment that we hold so foundational in our nation continues to be an issue that needs to be , you know , protected. And , um. Uh , you know , sort of. Over time , I think we'll continue to see these battles play out , and individuals need to continue to sort of be on guard about it. Mhm.
S1: Mhm. I want to get into , you know , what people's understanding of what it is. That was sort of at stake here. So I mean , Professor Chin , as you mentioned earlier , there's a long legal precedent here that the Supreme Court chose to follow. Can you walk us through some of the most important cases to consider in this discussion about citizenship? Sure.
S2: Sure. So probably the most important , uh , early case is an English case called Calvin's case from 1608. And in Calvin's case , the English courts held that any person born in the King's domain or the Queen's domain was a subject , and therefore had reciprocal rights and Obligations to the Crown , and this established the principle of birthright. Status. Birthright. Subject. Ship. And of course , the colonies were founded by England and became the United States. And in the early United States we followed Calvin's case. Uh , citizens had to come from somewhere. There was nothing in the original constitution about citizenship. There were mentions of citizenship , but no discussion of how to get it. But everybody understood that you became a US citizen by being born in the United States , subject to limited exceptions for children of enemy troops and hostile occupation and children of foreign diplomats. The next big case was Dred Scott in 1857 , and so the general concept of birthright citizenship was widely recognized , and Dred Scott raised the question of whether it would be applicable to persons of African nativity or descent , and the Supreme Court notoriously said that the answer was no. That citizens had to be white. They were the dominant race. And if you weren't of that race , even if you were born here , you weren't a citizen. That decision was celebrated in some places , but excoriated in others , and it was repudiated at the end of the Civil War in the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment , which said all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof , are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. And everybody agrees that that provision was intended to grant citizenship to the , uh , to persons of African Nativity and descent born in the or African descent born in the United States. So it was designed to repudiate Dred Scott and make citizens of everybody , regardless of race. And that brings us to the the case that was really at issue here , a case called Wong Kim Ark from 1898. And Wong Kim Ark involved Chinese immigrants to California who at the time were not allowed to become naturalized citizens because there was a racial restriction on naturalization. And they were also , as a general rule , prohibited from immigrating. Those who were already here could stay , but the Chinese Exclusion Act said that no new Chinese people could come. And so the Supreme Court had to decide whether children of Chinese immigrants who were prohibited on a going forward basis and not allowed to naturalize , were their children. Nonetheless , citizens and the Supreme Court answered that question yes , that the child born in the United States , was a citizen even though they were of a disfavored race. And so that was that was the law , uh , understood to be the law for , uh , uh , well over a century , uh , until our latest controversy over birthright citizenship , which was associated with undocumented migration. And some people said , why should there why should children of undocumented people born in the United States be citizens under this rule , which was designed for a completely different circumstance? Professor Mark. Well.
S1: Well.
S2: Yeah , that was the basis for the executive order.
S1: So , Professor Martinez. Matsuda , do you have anything to add to that? No.
S3: No. I mean , I just I agree with Professor Chin , and I think it's important to underscore that in many ways , this challenge to birthright citizenship is deeply un-American for , you know , the reasons we were just discussing that it goes against something. You know , historians have sort of termed the revolutionary consensus established among the founding generation that , in fact , you know , believed and enforced the idea that the United States was not a nation of tiered classes , that we would have , in fact , equal power to self-governance that would be protected by fundamental liberties and the rule of law. And this was something to be celebrated , in fact , as we are , you know , in the midst of the 250th celebration of the declaration. Declaration of independence , this was sort of a key factor. And , um , and , you know , as these cases sort of suggest that we've been through the case of Dred and Harriet Scott and Wong , Kim , Mark and others , I'm thinking of John Ellis as well , which is really critical to this discussion. Um , it suggests to us it shows to us how , in fact , these kind of guarantees have been struggled over and how we've had to kind of uphold this guarantee of citizenship that we believe to be so foundational to our nation's principles.
S1: You know , how do we define citizenship in the United States from a social and cultural standpoint? What's the public understanding of it from where you sit?
S3: Well , I always say that I think one of the important factors to consider is that it's never been a term that's been sort of static , right? That it's never been kind of a fixed or , um , a sort of set definition. And that's the reason why it's important. Right? It's it's something that needs to be , as I suggested , fought over , protected and upheld , especially when it's a threat that's coming from our own government. And so whereas I think a lot of kind of the popular opinion is that citizenship is somehow somehow an inalienable kind of right. You either have it or you don't. Um , historical precedent shows that , in fact , it's more malleable than that , that it is an issue. Right? A status , a condition that people have had to petition initiate court cases. Demand kind of more expansive protections around and insist , in fact , that our governments protect those foundational rights.
S1: So , you know , like , where do these challenges to citizenship stem from? From both from a legal and historical standpoint?
S2: Well , I think they involve concern about demographic change. Uh , since the 1965 Immigration Act , there have been a lot more people of color coming to the United States. Uh , I think that has been an unmitigated boon to the United States economically and culturally. Um , but it does mean that there are more people who speak different languages and eat different foods and , uh , than there were in 1950 or 1850. And I think that makes some people uncomfortable. Uh , you know , things. Things are changing. Why can't they be the way they were before? Um , you know , there's no evidence. The evidence is , is that immigrants commit less crime than native born Americans. And we screen immigrants , um , for , uh , for their economic , uh , attributes. Um , but , uh , but still , uh , some people are uncomfortable with change. And frankly , you know , I think I think that's where it comes from. There's historically there's always been anxiety about new immigrants , whether they're French or German or or Chinese or Italian or Jewish or Catholic. You know , there's always been anxiety about , uh , immigration in the United States And so far , each and every time it's turned out that immigration has proved to be beneficial to the United States and that new immigrants have fit into the United States perfectly well. But still , um , people are uncomfortable with change.
S1: So and I yeah , that's that's one narrative. Um , but I'm going to move on to because much of the legal controversy surrounding citizenship have also centered on race. So what role does racism play in these challenges to citizenship? You think , Professor Martinez Matsuda?
S3: Yeah , I think that's a really important question because I agree with Professor Chen , and I do think that it's very much connected to demographic change and what that means for our political future. And to understand that is to consider race as part of the xenophobia. Right. That is kind of motivating these actions , that it's not just a claim that people from other countries seek to enter into the United States to undermine our values or , you know , our way of life rather than to enrich it , but to really change the , you know , kind of demographic makeup again , the nature of what this country is about and the way you really see this explicitly is in kind of thinking about Trump's executive orders as a whole. And so this executive order that was , you know , sort of being debated with birthright citizenship was about the quote unquote , meaning and value of American citizenship. So what is encompassed in that? Who is a part of that? But additional executive orders passed in January of 2025 included the Securing Our Borders executive order and the declaring a national emergency at the southern border of the United States border. And this , if you read the language around these executive orders , is all about invasion , right? The idea not just of , again , you know , we welcome immigrants into the United States kind of more , you know , liberal , kind of promising narrative , historical narrative around who we are. But one of the way that immigrants are undermining. Right? These are criminal , criminal gangs. These are terrorists. These are traffickers. These are not , you know , people who we want as our neighbors. And I think understanding it collectively really captures the way that this is really a fear that's much broader. The only other thing I'll add to it is also the April Supreme Court decision on Louisiana versus Goliath , which is about voting rights. Right. So again , to connect it to the political power. So in that decision , the court weakens section two of the Voting Rights Act , prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race , color , language , minority status , etc.. And that is , again , I think , illustrative of this kind of bigger political campaign or agenda to really deny certain individuals , most of whom are people of color and immigrants , the kind of political power that comes with the status of citizenship.
S1: Right , and so on that , I mean , well , citizenship is supposed to come with guaranteed rights. That hasn't been the reality for many Americans historically. I'm wondering if you can talk a bit more about that , Professor Chen?
S2: Well , that's exactly right. Uh , it's very clear that the 14th amendment made African Americans citizens , but it didn't prevent them from having to attend segregated schools , being denied admission to colleges , having to sit on the back of the bus , uh , being denied the right to vote. The citizenship was was great. In some ways. It prevented them , I suppose , from being deported from the country entirely. But by no means did the fact that they were citizens mean that they had any sort of equality. And so Professor Martinez is absolutely right that there has been this constant struggle to give some content to the value of citizenship , to to say , hey , if you're a citizen , you should be able to vote on the same basis as everybody else. And and that struggle continues. Uh , one one way that it goes on now is , uh , that there are Supreme Court cases that say that with regard to immigration enforcement , it's permissible to take race into account. And so , uh , and so , uh , Ice agents or Border Patrol agents , if they are doing immigration enforcement and are concerned that somebody might not be , uh , lawfully in the United States , they can say , oh , you look Mexican , you look Asian , whatever those things mean. And they can use that as part of the calculus to see whether there's reasonable suspicion that you are an alien. Justice Kavanaugh , in one of his decisions , recently , uh , upheld this line of cases. And and , uh , There's reason to believe that it's being applied on the streets every day by immigration authorities. And so what that means is , uh , that , uh , Asian citizens and , uh , Latino Latina citizens , uh , they might be citizens , but , uh , unless and until they can prove it to the satisfaction of law enforcement officers on the street , they are subject to , uh , to an imposition on their freedom to go about their lives. That doesn't apply to people who are not in those groups. Right?
S1: Right? So pretty much anyone who's not white , is that what you're saying?
S2: Pretty much anyone white can have that fact taken into account. Uh , and if there are other facts , it can't be based on race alone. But if it's based on race , plus the fact that they're in an area with a lot of immigrants , plus they're an area where a lot of undocumented immigrants travel through , like a highway or a city. Uh , if if with additional facts , it can be the basis to stop them and investigate their status. And , um , that's a very unpleasant experience for somebody who's just trying to go about their life. Mhm.
S1: Mhm. Well , Professor Martinez Matsuda , I'm curious , what do you see as the rippling effects of this decision and the controversy and the conversation really around , you know , who gets to be a citizen in this country who doesn't and really like , who gets to decide? Yeah.
S3: Yeah. I mean , I think the thing to reinforce is , again , the idea that this is always been contested ground and that despite the Supreme Court cases , that we were just discussing , that our legal precedent for the ruling that we heard today , there have been hundreds and hundreds of other cases that have not reached the Supreme Court that are essentially about , you know , the fundamental issue , which , just as John Brown stated in the opinion that citizenship then and now is the right to have rights and people have been really litigating that right since , really the origins of this country. To what extent? For whom? Where? Upon what issues? Right. And , you know , I think this is , again , fundamental to the idea of , you know , these kind of notions of freedom and democracy that we don't say it's available to some based on race or their religion and not others , right? That we are a nation that upholds equality for all. And that's significant. I think also because , um , you know , the nation's founding generation believed that citizenship was a political contract and people had the obligation to enact what was often termed Republican virtue. Right. The that we , by questioning the parameters of citizenship , are , in fact exercising citizenship through participation , through calling upon these questions. And so I hope that this is an issue that continues. And so maybe a way to think of this in more positive terms that this is a perennial struggle , but a promising one.
S1: All right. I've been speaking with Professor Gabriel Jack chin , professor at UC Davis School of Law , and also Veronica martinez Matsuda. She's a professor at UC San Diego , professor of history. Thank you both so much for your insight and for joining me today.
S4: Thank you. Thank you all.
S1: That's our show for today. I'm your host , Jade Hindman. Thanks for tuning in to Midday Edition. Be sure to have a great day on purpose , everyone.
