The “melting pot” has long been the metaphor for the United States’ unique mix of cultures and backgrounds. Whatever your language or religion or physical features, the idea is that you, too, can be stirred into the bubbling stew that is America. If you were born in this country, you are a citizen of the country. There’s not much more to it.
But at the beginning of its second term, the Trump administration decided they wanted to start fishing people out of that stew. The day after being sworn into office, President Trump signed a presidential action seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents without legal status or on temporary visas. “The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” the action read. That gift, they argue, was never intended for just anyone. And on Wednesday, that argument made its way to the Supreme Court.
Kent Nishimura/AFP via Getty Images
The Trump administration’s position butts up against about 160 years of precedent. Birthright citizenship was enshrined in the U.S. Constitution in 1868, with the 14th Amendment. That amendment states it fairly plainly: “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.”
Thirty years later, that amendment was put to the test in the case of Wong Kim Ark — a man who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents. As a young man, Wong traveled to China for a visit. On his return to the U.S., he was denied entry on account of “not being a citizen.” But in a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Wong’s birth meant that he was a citizen. The citizenship of Wong’s parents had no bearing on his own, the Court ruled. And for generations, that ruling has endured.
But today’s United States seems to be fighting its way through a monumental identity crisis. On the one hand, our government is hand-wringing about the birthrate. In his first speech as vice president, JD Vance told the country he wanted “more babies in the United States of America.”
But “more babies in the United States of America,” doesn’t actually seem to mean “more babies in the United States of America.” At least, not all babies. We are desperate for more kids and a growing workforce, apparently — as long as those people have parents with American passports. And that’s an odd condition given that all over the place, folks are warning of the “unprecedented challenges” that the country will face if the U.S. population declines; they paint apocalyptic pictures of a rapidly aging population with no one there to take care of the elders, or build for the future.
So yes, U.S. citizenship may well be a priceless and profound gift. But who is that gift’s biggest beneficiary? With all the challenges and uncertainties facing the country, it may be that the government would get just as much from an expansive conferral of citizenship as the people in question. Close the lid to the melting pot, and we all might start to feel a little hungry.
Newsletter continues after sponsor message
ON THE POD
Photo by Chip Somodevilla / PATRICK T. FALLON / ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP / Getty Images
You maybe have noticed by now that many of the women of the highest up women in the Trump administration seem to share a particular look. There's the dramatic eye makeup, the long wavy hair, the plump lips — some have dubbed it "Mar-a-Lago face." And it's about a lot more than appearances. Journalist Inae Oh joins us to talk about what the aesthetics of MAGA tell us about power, race, femininity and obedience.
Support discussions that matter - try a subscription to Code Switch+. Dive deep into the conversation with none of the sponsor interruptions, and know that you’re making this all possible with your support. Learn more at plus.npr.org/codeswitch and start with 30 days free by using the code "freemonth".
Your turn: What's on your mind this week, fam? Tell me your beautiful hopes and dreams for April, if you have them. I'm getting over being sick, and could use a little boost. I also want to know: If you were mandating an aesthetic for the people in your presidential cabinet, what would it to be? A good friend once told me mine would be "off-duty ballet teacher in New England," so don't even try to claim that one.
I'll be back next week, by hook or by crook. Hope you will, too.
-Leah Donnella, senior editor
Written by Leah Donnella and editedby Dalia Mortada
Stream your local NPR station.
Visit NPR.org to find your local station stream.
Subscribe to Code Switch+. Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free episodes.
What do you think of today's email? We'd love to hear your thoughts, questions and feedback:codeswitch@npr.org
Enjoying this newsletter? Forward to a friend! They cansign up here.
You received this message because you're subscribed to Code Switch emails. This email was sent by National Public Radio, Inc., 1111 North Capitol Street NE, Washington, DC 20002
