In South Central Los Angeles, generations of African American families reside alongside expanding immigrant communities. Debates over citizenship in this context extend beyond legal considerations, encompassing history, identity, economic structures, and daily life.
Central to this national discourse is the constitutional principle established after the Civil War: birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While the legal definition appears straightforward, anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen; the political significance of this guarantee has become increasingly contested. In low-income neighborhoods such as South Central Los Angeles, these debates carry substantial implications that reach beyond judicial and governmental arenas and Donald Trump.
A Constitutional Promise Born from Exclusion
According to University of Las Vegas Professor Javon Johnson, the concept of birthright citizenship originates in the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 to secure citizenship for formerly enslaved African Americans. The amendment’s opening clause affirms that all individuals born in the United States are citizens, thus overturning Dred Scott V. Sanford.
According to Johnson, for African Americans, this provision is not just legal language but a foundational assurance of inclusion in a nation that previously excluded them. In South Central Los Angeles, where segregation, redlining, and disinvestment have shaped neighborhoods, the guarantee retains “only historical significance,” according to Johnson.
Healthcare, Economics, and the Medical Home Model
While contemporary debates increasingly center on immigration policy, prompting questions about the definition and criteria of citizenship. At the local level, citizenship issues intersect with healthcare in complex ways. Many federally funded clinics operate under the “Medical Home” model, designed to provide continuous care. Healthcare professionals note that childbirth serves both as a mission-driven act and a strategic clinic investment. A child born in a clinic automatically acquires U.S. citizenship under birthright law and typically qualifies for full-scope Medi-Cal. The child often becomes a long-term patient within the clinic’s network.
Dr. Paul Girardi, DO and a senior physician of Osteopathic Medicine, explained at the South Central Family Health Center Vernon Medical Center, “The clinic will benefit long-term from this delivery. The newborn becomes a patient for life.” Once the child is a patient, the clinic often becomes the primary provider for both parents and siblings.
Medi-Cal expansions in California influence this dynamic: “California’s recent Medi-Cal expansions mean that these parents may also eventually qualify for full-scope Medi-Cal benefits, moving from ‘emergency only patients’ to fully insured ones,” said Giradi.
Health Operational Research Economist Daniel Reeves emphasized the variable financial implications:
“This newborn’s birth can go from a $2,500 medical bill to $100,000 if the child needs neonatal care,” said Reeves. Complications are more prevalent in underserved communities with limited prenatal care. He continued, “The federal government eventually pays these costs.”
Reeves noted that while the Medical Home model contributes to clinic stability, some policy groups interpret its effects differently.
Policy Debate and the Question of “Birth Tourism”
Certain conservative groups argue that birthright citizenship creates incentives that strain public resources. Heritage Foundation Fellow Alexander Acosta identified inner-city healthcare systems as central to this debate.
“Inner city hospitals and clinics are ground zero for birth tourism,” Acosta stated, referring to the practice of traveling to the United States to give birth. He characterized this as “The deliberate action of entering another country while pregnant to secure automatic citizenship for the child.”
According to this perspective, restricting birthright citizenship could reduce perceived burdens on public programs, including healthcare and education by tightening access and eligibility for these resources. Acosta maintained that the broader objective is to “restore the true value of citizenship.”
He further asserted, “The inner city community should value citizenship, because the federal government cannot adequately address issues south of the border when resources here are stretched thin in low-income areas.”
This argument positions policy change as a means to reallocate or conserve government resources, with direct implications for service availability in areas such as South Central Los Angeles.
Acosta argues that current birthright citizenship is becoming an economic tool. He notes, “Chinese tourist agencies sell birthright tours to pregnant Chinese nationals, who come here to give birth. Our resources are thinning in long-underserved urban areas throughout our nation.”
South Central Los Angeles: A Shared but Uneven Landscape
According to Pastor Jerry Sorrells of Greater Holy St. John, South Central Los Angeles is a historically significant African American community, now also home to a growing Latino, Asian, and immigrant population. Demographic shifts have fostered both solidarity and tension, as residents often share under-resourced schools, limited housing, and similar economic challenges. “Local institutions serve overlapping populations, but national immigration debates sometimes frame these shared challenges as divisions,” said Pastor Jerry Sorrells. “It’s up to us in this community to remember we are all God’s children and develop a humanistic approach to birthright citizenship.”
The Politics of Scarcity and Perception
Professor Javon Johnson argues that perceptions shape these debates. “In South Central Los Angeles, where inequality runs deep, such narratives can gain traction even when they don’t reflect the true causes. Issues like underinvestment, wage stagnation, housing shortages, and uneven development are often reduced to identity explanations, obscuring the shared economic realities faced by Black and immigrant communities alike,” said Johnson.
He emphasized the need for coalition-building, stating, “We need each other, Black and Brown, to tackle economic inequality.” He suggests that the Trump administration is using former Governor Pete Wilson’s playbook, pitting Black people against Latino people. During Wilson’s campaign, he used Black Californians to endorse the passing of Illegal Immigration Bill 187. Shortly after successfully passing the bill, he passed an affirmative action bill that impacted Black college students.
Shared Struggles, Different Histories
Although African American and immigrant communities in South Central Los Angeles have distinct historical trajectories, they encounter similar challenges. Public schools serve multilingual populations yet consistently struggle with inadequate funding. Escalating housing costs displace working-class families from economic centers.
Local businesses operate under financial constraints resulting from prolonged disinvestment. Each community, however, possesses a unique historical narrative. African Americans bear the legacy of slavery, segregation, and the civil rights movement, while many immigrant families are shaped by experiences of migration, displacement, or economic necessity. Birthright citizenship exists at the intersection of these histories. For African Americans, it represents a constitutional promise rooted in centuries of struggle for full recognition. For immigrant communities, it embodies the hope of stability and inclusion for their U.S.-born children.
Identity, Belonging, and Public Discourse
In national media and political discourse, citizenship debates are frequently framed in abstract legal terms. In South Central Los Angeles, however, these issues manifest in daily interactions and shared community spaces. Churches, schools, and neighborhood organizations regularly connect individuals across racial and ethnic boundaries. Simultaneously, these institutions can serve as platforms where national debates influence local conversations, subtly shaping perceptions. When citizenship becomes politicized, it can alter how residents perceive one another, not necessarily through direct conflict, but through evolving narratives of belonging.
The Risk of Oversimplification
A significant challenge in discussions of birthright citizenship is the risk of oversimplification. South Central Los Angeles cannot be characterized by a singular narrative; it is a multifaceted community shaped by history, migration, resilience, and persistent struggle. Framing the issue as a binary between “native-born” and “immigrant” overlooks the deeper structural realities that impact all residents.
The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to address questions of inclusion following a history of exclusion. Contemporary debates over this principle now reflect broader tensions concerning identity, demographic shifts, and birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship remains a foundational principle in American constitutional law, yet its interpretation continues to evolve in public discourse.
In South Central Los Angeles, where African American history and immigrant experiences converge, the debate extends beyond legal status to encompass questions of belonging, shaped by access, opportunity, and recognition. Policymakers, journalists, and residents face the challenge of addressing these issues while remaining attentive to the communities most directly impacted. In neighborhoods where historical legacies and present-day struggles intersect, citizenship is not solely a legal designation but a lived reality. As national debates advance, South Central Los Angeles underscores that behind every constitutional question are communities contending with the tangible consequences of those answers. All questions are real communities dealing with the consequences of those answers.