(George Harris) – Here’s a simple question: If something was “common sense” in 1993. how did it suddenly become “extreme” in 2026?
That’s the question Nevada voters should be asking as Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto blasts President Donald Trump over birthright citizenship.
Because the position she’s attacking today sounds a whole lot like the one her political mentor, the late Sen. Harry Reid, once championed.
And not quietly.
Back in 1993, Reid introduced the Immigration Stabilization Act.
One part of that bill aimed to clarify the 14th Amendment. It would have denied automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents were here illegally.
Now listen to Reid’s own words from the Senate floor.
“If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant?” Reid said. “No sane country would do that.”
🚨 Democrat Senator Harry Reid introduced legislation in 1993 to end Birthright Citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants.
“No sane country would do that — No sane country would give illegals citizenship”
“If you break our laws by entering this country without… pic.twitter.com/jZu5z7sWNM
— MJTruthUltra (@MJTruthUltra) April 2, 2026
That’s not talk radio. That’s not a campaign ad. That’s a Democrat from Nevada.
Reid went even further. He warned that giving citizenship in those cases guaranteed access to public services. He called it a reward for breaking the law.
Fast forward to today.
President Trump signs an executive order trying to limit birthright citizenship using the “subject to the jurisdiction” language in the 14th Amendment. The issue is now before the United States Supreme Court, which heard arguments just this week.
And suddenly, Democrats are outraged.
Sen. Cortez Masto and others are calling Trump’s move unconstitutional. They say it’s an attack on long-standing American values.
“Any child born in the United States is a citizen of the United States,” Cortez Masto declared on February 20, 2025, “and we will hold this administration accountable for their attempt to deny that right.”
Groups like the ACLU and Democratic attorneys general are lining up to fight it in court.
Now pause for a second.
Same issue. Same core argument. Same constitutional language. But now it’s “dangerous”?
So what changed?
Not the Constitution. Not the facts. Not even the basic concern about illegal immigration and incentives. What changed is the politics.
And that’s where the hypocrisy hits hard.
Cortez Masto didn’t just appear out of nowhere. She was Harry Reid’s hand-picked successor. His protege. His political ally.
She built her career in the shadow of a man who once said, clearly and directly, that automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants made no sense.
Now she’s attacking Trump for saying essentially the same thing. That’s not evolution. That’s political convenience.
To be fair, Reid himself later walked back his position. He called the bill “the biggest mistake I ever made.”
And today’s Democrats argue that the 14th Amendment has been understood for more than a century to guarantee citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.
That’s their argument. And it deserves to be heard. But here’s the problem.
You can’t call something “insane” in one decade and “sacred” in the next without explaining why.
You can’t pretend this debate just started when your own party was leading it not that long ago.
And you definitely can’t act shocked when someone like Trump raises the same question your own mentor once asked.
For Nevadans, this isn’t some abstract legal fight. It’s about trust.
When leaders shift this dramatically, people start to wonder. Are they standing on principle? Or just following the political winds?
Because if the answer depends on who’s in the White House, that’s not leadership. That’s politics at its worst.
The opinions expressed by contributors are their own. Digital technology was used in the research, writing, and production of this article. Please verify information and consult additional sources as needed.
