Brian J. Johnson, writing for CalMatters on the upcoming oral arguments at the Supreme Court “on whether the Constitution’s 14th Amendment guarantees ‘birthright citizenship,’” and the “original public meaning” of the Amendment:

During an 1866 debate in Congress, Pennsylvania Sen. Edgar Cowan complained about “Gypsies” who “acknowledge no allegiance” and “settle as trespassers where ever they go.” He also argued that California should be able to protect itself from “a flood of immigration of the Mongol race.” He proposed changing the amendment text to exclude both groups.

“Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen?” he asked.

California Sen. John Conness agreed with Cowan’s interpretation of the proposal but argued to keep it as is. He stood by “the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.”

Congress adopted the bill without Cowan’s proposed exceptions.

In the wake of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and growing anti-Chinese sentiment:

Immigration services detained a man named Wong Kim Ark after a trip to visit his parents, who’d moved back to China. Wong, who was in his 20s at the time, produced proof of his San Francisco birth and demanded his release.

The government argued that, because Wong’s parents were subjects of the Emperor of China, owed their allegiance to that country and were ineligible for U.S. citizenship, their son could not be a natural born American.

The Supreme Court disagreed. It quoted Cowan and Conness on the amendment, for “the legal meaning of the words themselves,” and noted that no one at the 1866 debate contradicted them.

Ultimately, though, the high court declared the outcome to be controlled by something simpler: “the broad and clear words of the Constitution.”

The meaning of the 14th Amendment was so clear at its implementation that racists of the day argued for exclusions in hopes of narrowing its scope.

Eliminating or restricting birthright citizenship will require today’s Supreme Court to tie itself into knots to ignore history and precedent. Again. (And again, and again.)