John Conness still represents us. And how lucky are we for that!
So what if few Californians, and not even many California scholars, have ever heard of him? Nor does it matter that Conness hasn’t served in public office since 1869.
Because, right now, John Conness, and words he spoke in the 1860s, might be the best weapons California has against the new U.S. dictator/president—and against his lawless plans to deprive children born here of their constitutional right to citizenship.
Conness, who represented California in the U.S. Senate from 1863 to 1869, was clear and outspoken in support of birthright citizenship when Congress passed the 14th Amendment.
And Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship is based on falsely rewriting the text and history of the 14th Amendment—the very history in which Conness was player. While the amendment’s first section says plainly that “all persons born in the United States” are citizens, Trump claims the amendment was never intended to include everyone.
In his January 20 executive order declaring an end to birthright citizenship, Trump suggests that the amendment was only meant to ensure that former slaves of African descent had citizenship. The amendment, the order says, “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.” Trump claims that Congress never intended to entitle the children of immigrants without permanent legal status to birthright citizenship.
And if Trump can convince the conservative U.S. Supreme Court to accept his claims about this history, birthright citizenship could disappear.
So it is now important that, way back in 1866, Conness preemptively put the lie to Trump’s claims. The California senator led the debates that produced the 14th Amendment. And he constantly turned aside proto-Trumpian demands from his Senate colleagues to exclude some groups.
In late May 1866, when Pennsylvania Sen. Edgar Cowan suggested excluding from birthright citizenship “Gypsies,” “Australians,” “people from Borneo,” “man-eaters,” “cannibals,” or “another people of a different race, different tastes and sympathies,” Conness and made the intention behind the proposed amendment clear:
“Here is a simple declaration,” he said. “Human beings born in the United States shall be regarded as citizens of the United States, entitled to civil rights, to the right of equal defense, to the right of equal punishment for crime with other citizens. And that such a provision should be deprecated by any person having or claiming to have a high humanity passes all my understanding and comprehension.”