Tweet
If you can’t redo the Fourteenth Amendment, write over it. Arizona lawmakers are working on a brand new bill that would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants born on US soil -the so-called "anchor babies," a detestable term. The theory behind this is that the entire population of soon-to-be-parents from Mexico is scheming to jump the border to have their babies in Arizona – and therefore, their children would be US citizens, and it would make them much harder to deport. This idea drives conservatives crazy, even though evidence supporting this theory is razor-thin, if not nonexistent. But Arizona is already on a roll, after a law requiring police to check documentation of anyone "suspected" of being an illegal immigrant, then a ban on ethnic studies classes in public schools.
Yet I suspect this law will have a more difficult time passing muster, because this is what Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment says:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
See, the Constitution was a little bit vague about the grounds for citizenship, so the Fourteenth Amendment cleared up the confusion. If you’re born in the United States, you are a citizen. No state can take away that right. This amendment was also an outgrowth of the Civil War and Reconstruction, in an attempt to prevent white Southerners from denying African Americans the rights of citizenship after the end of slavery. (Of course, we all know it took much longer to finally overturn Jim Crow laws.)
I’m just not sure how this can stand up to a court challenge, since the Amendment is pretty specific. Yet a Republican supporter disagrees with this premise:
John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called "anchor babies," said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters … it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 — the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers.
I think this perfectly crystallizes the divide between conservatives and liberals when it comes to the Constitution. I think it also underlines the danger of originalism. I’ve been reading posts on some conservative blogs lately about how liberals want to "tear apart" the Constitution "in order to protect it." Even after reading a number of posts on this, I have no idea what the basis for the argument is, but this is a widely-circulated view. See, conservatives think we should have just stuck to the original document, and divine what the intentions of the Founding Fathers were over 200 years ago – because what they wrote was perfect, and they could envision how it would apply in a society that has spaceships, iPhones and Facebook. So it’s true, the Founding Fathers weren’t so clear about who should be citizens, except to write that Congress has the power to decide the requirements – but considering that "America" was a fledgling concept and the colonists here all came from Europe, I’m under the impression that determining citizenship was sort of a more fluid process in 1781.
I also believe if they thought their document was perfect, they probably wouldn’t have added amendments. It’s telling what amendments conservatives want to enshrine as opposed to those they want to toss. For example, the Second Amendment is held sacred, and clearly the Father’s original intention behind "the right to bear arms" would one day apply to assault weapons. They are also fond of the First Amendment, in order to legally sanction the utterance of racist, homophobic or sexist statements. Not to mention the Tenth Amendment, which grants all powers not overseen by Congress to the states. Yet the Fourteenth Amendment is meant to be a palimpsest, to be scraped off and written over just because Arizona is becoming a hotbed laboratory for xenophobic lawmaking? Perhaps this is because the Founding Fathers, those men of infinite wisdom, didn’t write the Fourteenth Amendment – they stopped at one through ten in the Bill of Rights. So does that mean we should toss all amendments that came after? Should we re-institute slavery (Thirteenth Amendment)? Take the vote away from women (Nineteenth Amendment?) I’m just trying to be clear on which parts we should ignore.
You see, conservatives want to go back to the days of yore when we read the Constitution literally, along with the social intentions of the Founding Fathers – remember, the good old days when black people were three-fifths of a person and women didn’t count at all. I don’t think they realize suggesting this is insulting to a lot of people. They also don’t seem to make the connection that the Constitution gives Congress the power to decide who gets citizenship, which Congress did – by passing the Fourteenth Amendment, which lawmakers like Kavanagh want to scrap. People born in this country are citizens. Period. Even if they are born to illegal immigrants. If they are born on US soil, they are citizens. Therefore people born here are not "aliens," Mr. Kavanagh. While you’re schooling me on the history of citizenship laws, could you also let us know how you feel about a baby born here to, say, British parents? Just so we’re clear this isn’t about race.
While we’re at it, I’d also like to know how John McCain stands on this new proposal.
4 Comments
If you want to get an intimate view of where this is all going, I highly recommend a re-read of Sinclair Lewis’ ‘It Can’t Happen Here’, and of course, Eric Blair’s ’1984′. While I can’t help but think that most of you have already read these page turners, I took the time to read them again and it scared the holy crap out of me. How did they know? Or perhaps, how come we can’t see it and don’t know? That was rhetorical because we at FDL do know and can see the road ahead if things don’t change. Just something to do in your spare time. Woof!
What scares me is definitely the complacency on the part of some people toward these laws, or even support found in recent polls! It scares the holy crap out of me too. Good reading recommendations. Oh, and I forgot to include a link to the cross-post, which is here.
What’s rather interesting in Lewis’ book is that you can see and hear the same mentality of the people then in the 1930′s as you see and hear today in the Tea Party. Ignorance, stupidy, and hate are always hungry and must be fed.
Here in Arizona, the majority of white Democrats favor SB 1070. And the majority of Hispanics and Native Americans are opposed to SB 1070. The Navojo Tribal Council passed their Resolutions in opposition to SB 1070 on the basis that Navajos look like Mexican Nationals. Additionally, the Council passed another Resolution in opposition to the prohibition of ethnic studies in public schools. The rationale was that at the behest of white Arizonans, the Navajos are not going to eliminate their language and culture.
For children born here in the USA to undocumented immigrants, 18 Republican-led state legislatures will be dumping into their respective legislative hoppers to prohibit children born to undocumented immigrant parents, citizenship, and thusly, challenging the 14th Amendment. And most unnoticed or unobserved in any discussion, many of these children are born due to the sexual behavior of American men, both non-Hispanic and Hispanic.
As an aside, last Wednesday, Rasmussen put out their national poll in which a hypothetical race between Obama and Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer, the results were 44% for Obama, 39% for Brewer, and 17% said “some other candidate”. Hell, Brewer polls even better than Sarah Palin.
And with white Democrats favoring SB 1070, this is notable for the fact that Democrats nationally, are making the First Rule of the Sonoran Desert and which is “You can piss off your friends, but don’t antagonize your political allies” somewhat obsolete or will soon be put to the ‘test’ nationally. Thus, the Spanish-speaking community will be scrambling to re-invent itself by challenging white Democrats. And this probability will come forth in the form of an ‘alternative’ to the DNC platform of 2012. And if you ‘read’ Chicano political blogs, Hispanic leadership is under assault as “vendidos” and “sell outs”. Remix the 1960s and early 1970s, and history will tend to repeat itself, however, somewhat differently, and where immigration reform and Jobs are combined into expanded street demonstrations.
Jaango