By Sarah Daponde Asst. Arts & Features Editor The Center for Inclusive Excellence (CIE) hosted an event as part of their “Diversity Dialogues” series on March 12 to discuss birthright citizenship and the Trump administration’s recent executive order regarding the 14th Amendment. Joseph M. Adelman and Maria Alessandra Bollettino, history professors at FSU, were invited by the CIE to lead the discussion of “Diversity Dialogues: Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment.” “There is a long historical context for everything that is happening today … and having an awareness of that helps you make sense of what is going down,” said Bollettino. She said birthright citizenship means someone is entitled to citizenship simply by being born within U.S. territory. “It’s just the fact of your birth. It’s not a specific identity you hold. It guarantees your rights of citizenship, but also your obligations of citizenship,” Bollettino added. Adelman then discussed the Trump administration’s recent executive order. “It feels like it was a million years ago, but it was actually 51 days ago,” said Adelman, in regard to when the executive order was issued. It was issued on his first day in office. The executive order interprets the 14th Amendment differently than it has been interpreted in the past by historians and legal scholars, said Adelman. The order would revoke citizenship from someone whose mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. or was lawfully present under temporary authorization, and whose father was not a legal citizen at the time of the person’s birth, said Adelman. Bollettino added, “You’re talking about a group of people who are undocumented - you are talking about a very vulnerable population. And vulnerable populations tend to be the ones that are targeted and scapegoated.” A federal judge blocked the executive order for being unconstitutional and in violation of the 14th Amendment, added Bollettino. The 14th Amendment was one of three additions to the Constitution after the Civil War, said Bollettino. The Civil War, which was fought to liberate enslaved people, began the debate surrounding citizenship - “Who got to be an American?” she said. While the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery, the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to formerly enslaved people, said Bollettino. She said this was to ensure all Black Americans were fully protected by the law and were given the rights of citizenship, something they were not given before. Enslaved people had no civil rights, said Adelman. They could not vote, testify in court, serve on juries, and usually could not own land. Bollettino then read part of the 14th Amendment aloud. “No state shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. “This is the [clause] that is subject to debate, discussion, reinterpretation by the White House today,” she said. Before the 14th Amendment, there was no clear way of determining who was a citizen because it was not stated in the Constitution, said Bollettino. Whether someone, including free Black Americans and white immigrants from countries such as Germany and Ireland, had the right to vote varied state-by-state and year-by-year. “This was something that was actually subject to a whole lot of debate and discussion and political action in the early Republic, in the period leading up to the Civil War,” she added. Enslaved people had no rights, said Adelman. Because of this, it was unclear what rights freed Black Americans held after the Civil War. “The question in 1865 was, ‘There are 4 million formerly enslaved Black people - now what?’” Adelman added. He said there was a significant number of free Black Americans in the 1820s through the 1850s pushing for the end of slavery and for their own rights. The idea that it was impossible for America to be a racially integrated country came up in the 19th century, said Adelman. That led to a push to send people of African descent to live in Africa. “Many of the Black people they were sending ‘back to Africa’ could trace their lineage in North America back more generations than the white people who were making the suggestion,” said Adelman. Several thousand Black Americans were transported to West Africa, specifically Liberia and Sierra Leone, said Adelman. “It was basically a movement to deport whole groups of people who had been living as free people in the United States,” added Bollettino. This led to debate, as Black people had mixed responses to this, she said. Some were convinced they could not live safely in the U.S. and that their rights would not be honored. “But others said, ‘Hell no, we are Americans. … What we actually deserve is full and complete rights of citizenship in the nation of our birth.’” The 14th Amendment was the culmination of those Black Americans who argued for birthright citizenship throughout and after the Civil War, said Bollettino. An attendee commented on how birthright citizenship was originally created to give rights to Black Americans and is now usually discussed in relation to immigrants coming to the U.S. “It has ended up serving as a touchstone for all manners of groups of people who have been arguing that they are citizens of the United States,” said Bollettino. Bollettino then discussed a pivotal moment in the debate of birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Ark, the child of two Chinese immigrants, was born in San Francisco, said Bollettino, where he spent the first eight years of his life. “This was a moment where many Chinese laborers had come into the United States to work on the Transcontinental Railroad, to serve as agricultural laborers, to mine for gold and other precious metals in the west,” Bollettino added. When an economic downturn hit the U.S., many Americans began to see Chinese laborers as competition in the job market. This resulted in a political movement called the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which aimed to stop Chinese laborers from coming to the country, she said. “The United States basically wanted to enforce and extend the Chinese Exclusion Act, so they were looking for a test case of this clause in the 14th Amendment that guaranteed birthright citizenship,” said Bollettino. Ark’s parents moved back to China and he moved back and forth between China and the U.S., she said. He went back to China to find a wife, but when he returned to the U.S., he was denied entry. “The attempt was to basically tell Wong Kim Ark, ‘Actually, no, you’re not a citizen even though you were born in this country.’” she added. He protested his detention and won with the help of many Chinese organizations who protested with him. The U.S. appealed the case until it was brought to the Supreme Court, said Bollettino. The Supreme Court ruled six to two in favor of Ark. This same Supreme Court later ruled in the Plessy v. Ferguson trial, which cemented “separate but equal” laws. “So not the most racially enlightened of courts to say the least, but nonetheless argued, yes, the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship,” she added. Bollettino then read some exceptions to birthright citizenship, such as children of foreign leaders and children of enemies born during a hostile invasion. Indigenous people with direct allegiances to their tribes was another exception. “Everybody not listed in those exceptions - of whatever race or color - domiciled within the United States, and every citizen or subject of another country while domiciled here is within the allegiance and the protection [of the U.S.] and is consequently subject to the jurisdiction of of the United States,” Bollettino read from the 14th Amendment. “How it is interpreted now is a question that’s readily up for debate,” added Adelman. Adelman said the Trump administration is aiming to reinterpret this jurisdiction clause of the 14th Amendment in order to limit the number of people who count as citizens. The administration argues that if someone’s parents are not legal citizens of the U.S., they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. because they are still under the jurisdiction of the country they are from, said Adelman. “Another way to think about it is loyalty,” added Bollettino. The administration claims an immigrant’s loyalty is not to the U.S., it’s to their home country. She said the intent of the executive order may be to discourage people from having children in the U.S. if they know their children will not have birthright citizenship. “It’s different from how it’s been interpreted and was interpreted in the past,” she said. The Constitution was made to set up the framework for Congress and the president to decide which laws to pass, said Adelman. He said an executive order is an interpretation of the law that Congress can either pass or challenge. Adelman and Bollettino closed the discussion by thanking everyone for attending and Jerome Burke, director of the CIE, thanked them for coming. “I can speak for everyone that we learned something,” said Burke. “One of the hallmarks of teaching U.S. history is understanding the extent to which civic participation is important,” added Adelman. Bollettino said everyone being informed on what is going on in the country is a key part of making democracy work. “Democracy relies on active participation and engagement,” Adelman said. He said it was possible for people to be more educated on what is going on in their community by going to classes or city council meetings. “It’s annoying that it’s hard work, but democracy is hard work - stay engaged and come to things and ask questions,” Adelman added.