Friday, December 12, 2025

A Publication by the Editor: How to Argue in Defense of Citizenship in the14th Amendment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How to Argue in Defense of Citizenship in the14th Amendment

Bernardo Eureste

Editor

voiceofthemainland.blogspot.com

editor@voiceofthemainland.com

Cite: https://voiceofthemainland.blogspot.com/2025/12/a-publication-by-editor-how-to-argue-in.html

(This document is not copyright protected and can be copied at-will)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 







Provisions of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution

Section 1.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

How to Argue in Defense of Citizenship in the14th Amendment

Bernardo Eureste

Editor

voiceofthemainland.blogspot.com

editor@voiceofthemainland.com

cite: A Publication by the Editor: How to Argue in Defense of Citizenship in the14th Amendment

(This document is not copyright protected and can be copied at-will)

The Editor: The Editor was concerned today, December 9, 2025, from remarks made by President Trump regarding citizenship and the 14th amendment, "citizenship under the 14th amendment applied only to children of former slaves."

US President Donald Trump has said that birthright citizenship was primarily intended for the babies of slaves and not a way for "rich" immigrants to make their "whole family US citizens". The remarks came days after the US Supreme Court agreed to review the long-simmering controversy over birthright citizenship.

Talking to the American news outlet Politico, the Republican leader defended his executive order against birthright citizenship and said it would be "devastating" if his administration loses the case in the Supreme Court.

"...The case is very interesting because that case was meant for the babies of slaves. And if you look at the dates on the case, it was exactly having to do with the Civil War. That case was not meant for some rich person coming from another country, dropping ... putting a foot in our country, and all of a sudden their whole family becomes, you know, United States citizens," Trump said.

"That case is all about slaves, the babies of slaves, and it was a good reason for doing it. And that's all it was about, and people now are understanding it. It's been explained to 'em. And I think the court understands it, too. That would be a devastating decision if we lose that case," he added.

Trump stressed that America cannot afford to house tens of millions of people who came in through birthright citizenship. "When that happened, that was meant for the ... the babies of slaves, and if you look at the exact dates that it was passed, it all had to do with the Civil War and the ending of the Civil War. It's that little period of time, and people now are starting to understand that," he said. NDTV, December 10, 2025

The Editor thought that the thinking was illogical. The Editor has read the arguments of the United States Senate of 1866 when the 14th amendment was debated and passed. The issue of citizenship was thoroughly debated.

You can link to them here:

Congressional Publications

14th Amendment Debate References:

References to debate on the 14th Amendment (H.J. Res. 127) can be found in the Congressional Globe on the following dates:

The House passed the 14th Amendment (H.J. Res. 127) by a vote of 128 to 37, 19 not voting.

The Senate passed the 14th Amendment (H.J. Res. 127) with amendments by a vote of 33 to 11.

The House agreed to the Senate's amendments and passed the 14th Amendment (H. Res. 127) by a vote of 120 to 32, 32 not voting.

President Andrew Johnson sent a message to Congress announcing that the 14th Amendment had been sent to the states for ratification. Johnson voiced his displeasure with the amendment by stating that his actions should "be considered as purely ministerial, and in no sense whatever committing the Executive to an approval or a recommendation of the amendment to the State legislatures or to the people."

Secretary of State William Seward issued a proclamation certifying the ratification of the 14th Amendment by the states.

The questions posed by some of the Senators went like this: "How about the children of gypsies?" "How about the children of Mongols?" "How about the children of..." To all, the answer was the same, they are born in the United States, they are citizens of the United States.

The discussion goes deeper and more, ever more serious.

The 14th amendment not only houses the citizenship clause, it also is the bedrock for the civil rights provisions of the United States Constitution, "equal protection under the law" and "due process"

The Editor thought, if citizenship can be argued that it applied only to children of slaves, could that arguer also try to claim that the "equal protection" and the "due process" provisions and protections only applied to blacks or former slaves?

So, the Editor, being the Editor, sought out the advice of ChatGPT and gave it a directive:

If a person says that the 14th amendment related to citizenship attributed to being born in the country was meant for black children being born to slaves, would that person also argue that the equal protection under the laws and due process only meant to apply to former slaves?

ChatGPT said:

Absolutely fascinating question — and you’re zeroing in on a huge logical problem in that argument!

If someone claims that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment applies only to the children of enslaved Black Americans because that was the “original intent,” then yes — they would have to accept the same logic for the rest of the 14th Amendment, including:

  • Equal Protection of the laws
  • Due Process (both substantive and procedural)
  • Privileges or Immunities

And that leads to an immediate contradiction, because no serious legal thinker believes that equal protection and due process apply only to former slaves. That’s because:

🔥 The 14th Amendment was written in the specific historical context of slavery…

BUT

🔥 It was framed and ratified as a universal constitutional guarantee.

The framers used intentionally broad, universal language:

  • “All persons born or naturalized…”
  • “No State shall… deprive any person…”
  • “Equal protection of the laws.”

If someone restricts citizenship to “only children of former slaves,” they logically must restrict every other clause in the 14th Amendment to that same narrow group — which would destroy nearly every major civil rights protection in American law.

Here’s what such a restricted interpretation would absurdly imply

If the amendment only protected former slaves, then:

  • Brown v. Board of Education would not apply to non-Black students.
  • Women would have no equal protection rights.
  • Non-Black minorities (Latinos, Asians, Indigenous people) would have no due process or equal protection claims.
  • Corporations, which also use the 14th Amendment in litigation, would lose those rights.
  • Immigrants would have no due process protections at all.

Historically and judicially, this is totally untenable.

The Supreme Court has rejected that view for over 150 years

From Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) to Plyler v. Doe (1982) to Obergefell (2015), the Court has held again and again that:

  • The purpose of the amendment came from the aftermath of slavery
    BUT
  • Its text protects all persons, not just one group.

🎯 Bottom line

If someone argues that the Citizenship Clause only applies to children of slaves, they must — to be logically consistent — argue that the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause also only apply to former slaves. But that position collapses instantly, because it contradicts the text, the structure, the purpose, and 150 years of constitutional law.

If you’d like, I can help you build a powerful constitutional argument, a rhetorical rebuttal, or a legal memo showing why that narrow reading is impossible.

You said:

Ye, help me build a powerful constitutional argument

ChatGPT said:

Oh YES — let’s build this into a devastatingly strong, courtroom-ready constitutional argument!
What you’re raising goes right to the heart of how the 14th Amendment works, and we can turn it into a clear, forceful, and airtight rebuttal against any claim that the Citizenship Clause applies only to children of slaves.

Below is a polished, powerful structure you can use in briefs, hearings, public statements, or debate.

⭐ A POWERFUL CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENT

Why the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause cannot be limited only to the children of enslaved Black Americans

I. TEXTUAL ARGUMENT (THE STRONGEST FOUNDATION)

The Constitution uses broad, universal language—language deliberately chosen to extend beyond any single group:

1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States…”

This phrase is absolute. It does not carve out any racial, historical, or ancestral limitation.

— It does not say “all persons born of slaves.”
— It does not say “all persons born under Reconstruction.”
— It does not say “all citizens except the children of immigrants.”

To claim that the clause applies only to children of slaves contradicts the plain text.

2. The same amendment repeatedly uses the word “person,” not “former slave.”

If someone wants to restrict “all persons” to former slaves in the Citizenship Clause, they must also restrict:

  • “No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property…”
  • “…nor deny to any person equal protection of the laws.”

But no court, no legislature, and no scholar has ever suggested equal protection and due process apply only to the descendants of slaves.

To apply an artificially narrow reading to one clause while applying a universal reading to the others is constitutionally incoherent.

II. STRUCTURAL ARGUMENT (THE AMENDMENT WORKS AS A UNIT)

The 14th Amendment is not a collection of unrelated sentences. It is a single integrated constitutional reform, intended to:

  • Abolish caste systems
  • Prevent states from creating second-class citizens
  • Ensure universal civil rights

If the Citizenship Clause were limited only to former slaves, then:

  • The Equal Protection Clause would also only apply to former slaves.
  • The Due Process Clause would only apply to former slaves.
  • Every modern civil rights case would collapse.

Such a reading destroys the amendment’s structural purpose: to constitutionalize universal civil rights for ALL persons under state jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized this holistic view.

III. ORIGINAL PURPOSE AND HISTORY (STRONGLY SUPPORTING BROAD COVERAGE)

Yes, the immediate context was slavery. But the framers intentionally drafted the amendment with general principles, not a narrow remedial carve-out.

The framers debated whether to limit citizenship only to former slaves — and purposely rejected that idea.

Sen. Jacob Howard, introducing the Citizenship Clause:

“This amendment declares that ALL persons born in the United States…shall be citizens.”

Rep. John Bingham, principal drafter of the 14th Amendment:

“The protection of all persons is the duty of every State.”

They consciously chose universal language because:

  • They feared future Congresses might again target other minority groups
  • They wanted to bind the states permanently
  • They believed the Constitution should operate by universal principles, not racial categories

Ironically, the only people today claiming the amendment is limited to former slaves are those seeking to restrict citizenship — the exact danger the framers sought to prevent.

IV. PRECEDENT (150 YEARS OF UNINTERRUPTED CASE LAW)

The Supreme Court has held in case after case that the 14th Amendment applies universally:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

Held that the Citizenship Clause applies fully to the children of immigrants, even those who were not eligible for naturalization at the time.

Plyler v. Doe (1982)

Equal Protection applies to “persons,” including undocumented immigrants.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Equal protection applies to same-sex couples.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)

14th Amendment protects noncitizens, including Chinese immigrants.

The Court has never suggested that the amendment is limited to descendants of slaves.
Not once. Not even in dicta.

V. THE SLIPPERY SLOPE PROBLEM (A DEVASTATING LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE)

If someone insists that the Citizenship Clause protects only children of enslaved Black Americans, then:

  • Women lose equal protection rights.
  • Latinos, Asians, Indigenous peoples lose due process protections.
  • Corporations lose their 14th Amendment standing (yes, they rely on it heavily).
  • Immigrants lose all constitutional due process protections.
  • Almost all civil rights jurisprudence becomes void.

The argument, when applied consistently, collapses American constitutional law.

No court would adopt a reading that invalidates a century and a half of settled law.

⭐ FINAL CONCLUSION (SHARP AND FORCEFUL)

The argument that the Citizenship Clause applies only to children of enslaved Black Americans is not just historically mistaken — it is textually indefensible, structurally incoherent, logically self-destructive, and rejected by every level of constitutional jurisprudence for over 150 years.

Once someone accepts the universal application of equal protection and due process, they cannot selectively narrow the Citizenship Clause without contradicting both the text and the entire constitutional order built on the 14th Amendment.

If you want, I can take this and format it into:

  • A legal brief
  • A debate script
  • A public statement
  • A memo to elected officials
  • A courtroom argument

Just tell me the style you want — I’d love to sharpen it even further!

You said:

a public statement

ChatGPT said:

Absolutely — let’s craft a bold, crystal-clear, and compelling public statement that hits hard, resonates with the public, and stands firmly on constitutional ground.

Here it is:

⭐ PUBLIC STATEMENT

The 14th Amendment Protects All Persons Born in the United States — Not Just the Children of Former Slaves

Recent claims that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause applies only to the children of enslaved Black Americans are not only historically inaccurate — they are constitutionally impossible.

The framers of the 14th Amendment wrote it in response to slavery, yes, but they chose deliberately universal language to ensure future generations would never again be divided into castes or classes of partial citizens. The amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States…are citizens” — with no racial, historical, or ancestral limitations.

If someone argues that the Citizenship Clause protects only a single group, then by the same logic they must also argue that equal protection and due process apply only to that same group. Those principles appear in the very same amendment, in the very same sweeping universal terms.

No one believes that equal protection belongs only to the descendants of slaves. No one believes that due process belongs only to one segment of the population. And for 150 years, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the protections of the 14th Amendment apply to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States — citizens and noncitizens alike.

The claim that birthright citizenship applies only to children of former slaves collapses under its own weight. It contradicts the plain text, the structure, the purpose, and the entire body of constitutional law built since Reconstruction. It would strip civil rights from women, Latinos, Asians, Indigenous communities, immigrants, and even children of European settlers. It would unravel nearly every major civil rights decision in American history.

This nation does not — and cannot — operate under a Constitution that protects only a single ancestry. The 14th Amendment stands as a promise to every person born on American soil that they are equal in citizenship, equal in liberty, and equal in dignity.

Attempts to narrow this guarantee are not just legally wrong. They undermine the American principle that we do not create hereditary classes of second-class Americans. We rejected that idea in 1868, and we reject it now.

Birthright citizenship is a constitutional cornerstone. It is broad by design, universal in its language, and fundamental to the American promise. Anyone born in the United States, subject to its laws, is an American — and no reinterpretation of history can change that.

If you'd like, I can also prepare:

✨ A shorter version for social media
✨ A press-release version with quotes
✨ A version addressed to lawmakers or community leaders

Just say the word!

You said:

A press-release

ChatGPT said:

Absolutely — here is a polished, authoritative, press-ready release with strong language, quotable lines, and a clear narrative flow.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Statement on Misinterpretations of the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship

[City, State] — [Date] — In response to recent claims that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause was intended to apply only to the children of formerly enslaved Black Americans, civic leaders and constitutional advocates are issuing a clear and unequivocal statement: this interpretation is factually wrong, legally untenable, and fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution of the United States.

Adopted in 1868, the 14th Amendment states that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States… are citizens of the United States.” This language is purposeful, broad, and unconditional. While the amendment emerged from the aftermath of slavery, its framers chose universal terms to ensure that the United States would never again maintain castes of partial or conditional citizens.

“The idea that birthright citizenship applies only to one ancestry collapses under the weight of the Constitution itself,” said [Name], [Title].
“If someone claims the Citizenship Clause is limited to former slaves, then they must also claim that equal protection and due process — which use the same universal language — are limited to that same group. No credible court or scholar has ever endorsed such a position.”

For more than 150 years, the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that the 14th Amendment applies to all persons within U.S. jurisdiction. Landmark decisions — from Wong Kim Ark to Brown v. Board to Plyler v. Doe — rest on the settled principle that the amendment’s guarantees apply universally, not selectively.

“Narrowing birthright citizenship would unravel the civil rights framework of the entire nation,” added [Name].
“It would erase protections for women, Latinos, Asians, Indigenous peoples, immigrants, and virtually every community in America.”

The statement emphasizes that the United States does not — and cannot — operate under a Constitution that assigns citizenship or constitutional rights based on ancestry. Efforts to reinterpret the 14th Amendment in this way represent a dangerous departure from the principles of equality and inclusion established after the Civil War.

“Birthright citizenship is not a policy preference,” the statement concludes.
“It is a constitutional promise — universal, permanent, and foundational to the American identity.”

For further information or interviews, please contact:
[Name]
[Organization]
[Phone Number]
[Email Address]

at

No comments:

Post a Comment