“I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.”

That quote, from the first U.S. president, George Washington in a letter penned in 1788, kicked off a panel discussion last month on the future and history birthright citizenship and Trump administration’s attempts to reinterpret the 14th Amendment.

As clear-cut as Washington’s quote sounds, history tells a different story.

That was a key takeaway from the panel of experts who gathered to unpack the complex path to, and future of, birthright citizenship in America during the “The 14th Amendment: Birthright Citizenship & Belonging in America” discussion on March 17, hosted by the Tenement Museum’s Roosevelt House at Hunter College. Experts at the virtual event included Pres. Abraham Lincoln scholar and director of Hunter College’s Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute, Harold Holzer; Asian American Studies and Professor of History at Columbia University, Mae M. Ngai; Tenement Museum Pres. Annie Polland; and Chinese American politician, Margaret Chin.

Understanding the origins of birthright citizenship is essential to understanding the context and its importance in American culture, explained the panelists. Brought over from common law, many British settler countries continue to use birthright citizenship in some form, including Canada and 32 other nations, despite Trump’s false claim that the U.S. is the “only country in the world” that allows birthright citizenship.

The passage of the 14th Amendment to the U.S, Constitution in 1866 changed “the balance of state and federal power,” said Holzer. Previously state citizenship held more weight, with its regulations differing across the country, which led to a patchwork of rights and protections. In fact, the Civil War was not only significant for emancipation of slavery but also defining the rights and ability of immigrants to reside in America, he said.

But the “Chinese Exclusion Act” of 1882 prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers, and by excluding one group of people from birthright citizenship, it threatened the ability for all to obtain citizenship, said the speakers. Consequences of this act were clearly illustrated through the case of Wong Kim Ark, a U.S.-born Chinese man who often traveled between China and the U.S. After fighting for his citizenship in the Supreme Court, he won and set a major precedent, which began the path to equal treatment in the context of birthright citizenship.

Ngai noted the nativist movement that led to the Chinese Exclusion Act and the subsequent Geary Act of 1902, which further restricted Chinese immigration. Then came the story of Max Kohler, a lawyer and advocate, who penned a scathing Op-Ed in the New York Times. In this piece, he called the system of immigration at the time “the most un-American, inhuman, barbarous, oppressive system of procurement that can be encountered in any civilized land today for the treatment of yellow men.”

Kohler’s work highlighted the multiracial coalitions that fought against these exclusionary laws, a theme that resonated throughout the panel.

Polland reminds us, however, that ensuring the 14th Amendment applies to Chinese and other non-Whites, was only one of many challenges for immigrants, given the rampant discrimination taking shape at the time. The Union of Hope is an exhibition at the Tenement Museum, which tells the story of a Black family who, despite being “free,” faced barriers such as New York’s $250 property requirement for Black men to vote — only after the 15th Amendment did voting rights get addressed. Nevertheless, the museum acts as a tool to humanize the impact of such laws and policies, allowing history to be tangibly felt by visitors.

Ngai also draws parallels between the past and present, focusing the debate on the idea that shifts in birthright citizenship laws often targeted specific groups of people. For example, she explained that during the Great Depression, the federal government deported 400,000 Mexicans, half of whom were U.S. citizens. Similarly, Japanese Americans were labeled the “enemy race” during World War Two, despite two-thirds being birthright citizens.

Today, so-called “anchor babies” – when non-citizens have a baby in the U.S. – appears of utmost concern to the current administration, and is used as a reason for attempting to “re-interpret” the 14th Amendment.

The amendment’s language, however, is clear: citizenship is granted to those born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, with exceptions being for children of foreign diplomats and occupying forces – yet fears of reinterpretation lingers. Trump’s first administration also attempted to end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, but was blocked by the courts. The focus now appears on reinterpreting the law to avoid “anchor babies.” But, as Holzer noted, “The 14th Amendment is a cornerstone of democracy. Tampering with it risks unraveling the very fabric of our nation.”

Furthermore, the panelists discussed economic and social implications of birthright citizenship. Given that immigrants have always been essential to America’s growth, from the Irish and German workers of the 19th century to the Mexican and Asian laborers of the 20th century, the shifting of such might leave a significant impact on especially the current service industry.

Another fear of tampering with the 14th Amendment is the potential for “stateless” children. Some babies who have been born in the U.S. to undocumented parents might be deported, leading to a lack of citizenship in any country.

The “problem isn’t the 14th Amendment,” challenged Ngai, “it’s an outdated immigration system that needs updating.”