Logo

Born in the USA: Protecting the 14th Amendment

Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Born in the USA: Protecting the 14th Amendment
ShareThis
American birthright citizenship is downright Constitutional.

The birther movement is at it again. No, I'm not talking about the fringe group that insists, in defiance of all evidence to the contrary, that President Barack Obama is not a native-born citizen.

The birther movement I'm talking about is fixed on repealing the 14th Amendment, a Civil War-era addition to the Constitution clarifying the citizenship of freed slaves that confers instant citizenship on any person born in the United States or any of its territories, military bases, or assorted colonial leftovers. The birth prohibitionists fixate on reports of a gazillion or so migrants each year scheduling U.S. visits to coincide with due dates so their children become so-called anchor babies, offering a toe-hold for undocumented parents and siblings.

If that were actually the case, maybe we should just be gratified that there are folks who have such a high esteem for U.S. citizenship, entrepreneurial instincts, and acute long-term planning skills (anchor babies' citizenship doesn't "pay off" until age 21) and leave it at that. But there's plenty of reason to doubt the veracity of the "drop and leave" migrant delivery South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham so charmingly describes and plenty more reason not to use sociological myth-making to screw up what has been one of the hallmarks of the promise and generosity of American life.

Birthright citizenship in truth is practiced by a minority of nations around the world, but it's a civic tradition in the United States that is rooted in English Common Law and long predates the 14th Amendment's codification. Were it not for our acceptance of birthright citizenship, a great many "Americans" born in the 18th and 19th centuries to economic migrants from European backwaters like Ireland and Germany would not have been able to become citizens. After decades of accepting citizenship by birth, this tradition has suddenly become controversial. What's changed?

Increased socio-economic uncertainty always brings out the worst in America's nativist impulses, now unironically adopted by the children and grandchildren of immigrants. Politicians looking for editorial traction have settled on the issue as a public relations winner. But something uglier is also at work. You don't have to venture too far into the cyber underbelly of the 14th Amendment repealers before an atavistic ugliness becomes obvious--and odious.

We already know what stratified citizenship looks like. Generations of Japanese born to Korean parents are still marked as less than equal. Without fail, such gradations of citizenship lead to structural discrimination, labor exploitation, and frequently outright physical violence against the diminished partner in nationhood. The notion of degraded citizenship can lead to a permanent underclass and generations of unresolved tension and resentment.

That's why America's insta-citizenship, which confers not only the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship on the native-born but also the responsibilities and obligations, shines so brightly as a beacon of human dignity. Using native birth as a standard for citizenship is eminently reasonable. It is fortuitously uncomplicated; it speaks to our best traditions as a republic. This clear principle inoculates American democracy from unseemly and potentially hazardous debates about how to define "real Americans."

Catholic teaching can contribute to this conversation before it becomes too overwrought. We refuse to condemn those who migrate out of economic or political necessity. We acknowledge our scriptural obligation to protect and support the sojourner and the vulnerable. We embrace and defend the sacredness of life.

The anchor baby prohibitionists can certainly find anecdotal evidence to support their broad suspicions, but most of the people having children in America, whatever their legal or visa status, do so because they are open to life and want to be a family together. Our tradition has been to welcome that life into the world with them.

Welcoming, not denigrating the newcomer, has made us a stronger nation and a better people. That will continue to be true no matter how much rhetorical heat the 14th Amendment revisionists are able to generate before November.­

Kevin Clarke is a writer living in New York. This article appeared in the October 2010 issue of U.S. Catholic (Vol. 75, No. 10, page 39).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"left v right" and other barbs

To the editor of the US Catholic blog,
Would it be possible to edit out, or delete altogether, the mean-spirited and unhelpful posts from folks who have not the courage to give their real names, yet post inciteful and hateful emails, or blogs wherein their "thinking" consists of nothing more than accusations against the "lefties" or the "liberals" etc.

This is not a Yahoo forum, or a Fox News forum. It is, I thought, a forum for reading, thinking Christians, and if one considers themself as part of that category, they will restrain from histrionic barbs that have so polluted the current political scene?

So much of Vatican II Catholic theology is couched in terms of "social justice" and compassion. However, many of the bloggers here have a bad case of the screaming meemies, and their entries read like puerile tantrams. Can we please eliminate the name-calling and titles, and try to respond with some Christ-like compassion? What is the US Catholic's editorial policy?

Thank you.

Anchor Babies

Perhaps Kevin could be more charitable rather than ascribing to opponents evil motives of nativism and ugly primitiveness. Kevin appears to be in liberal bubble when he asks a rhetorical question with obvious answers: What has changed over the decades?

What has changed is the creation of the welfare state and a massive increase in illegal immigration. Even one of your co-contributors acknowledges that the U.S. spends quite a bit on illegal aliens.

http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2009/09/health-care-reform-may-jeopardize...

The Left can't separate compassion from standards. I feel compassion for many illegal aliens, but recognize it is disastrous for government to have no standards and an open border policy. I give to Christian charities that support third world children.

Another problem with the anchor baby policy is that illegal alien parents use it to voluntarily choose break up their families leaving three year old children in the U.S. when they are deported.

Ann Coulter provides an interesting history of the 14th Amendment:

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=380

Wrong Again!

Your response to my point confuses not having papers with sneaking across the boarder, which is like confusing losing one's car title with acquiring a car by hotwiring. If we can't control how many and what kind of people come here, the USA is doomed. (Some people point out that the 9/11 terrorists came here legally, but that just shows that legal immigration is broken as well as our borders, and that you can't wade across the Atlantic Ocean from Saudi Arabia.)

If the issue is about justica and morality, how do they apply to the forgotten Americans, the working class citizens I mentioned but you overlooked? Do they count? What do you tell unemployed people who are competing for jobs against illegals who earn $1 an hour? (The latter wage has been documented.) Did Jesus say "Just suck it up, underbid them by offering to work for 80 cents an hour"? (Usually when one asks Catholic elitists this question, chirping crickets can be heard.)

WRONG!

This over simplification of the issue ignores the long established legal principle that one cannot pass on anything obtained illegally. Therefore, just as the sale of stolen property is not valid, even if the buyer did not know the goods were stolen, people who are here illegally cannot gift their children with US citizenship the same as people who are here legally ("born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is understood by many scholars to mean legally here). The anchor babies would be inheriting stolen property.

BTW, I have yet to hear any organ of the Catholic Church express any concern or even acknowledgement of the burden illegal immigation places on working class Americans. The fact that the elites can get their lawns mowed cheaper seems to be the only thing that matters to their puppets in the Catholic Church.

Wrong? Born in the USA

Bob, your legalistic argument in re: the 14th Amendment fails on 2 counts: first, human beings are not property. Your references to the "sale of stolen property" does not pertain to human beings’ birthrights. Although difficult to separate legal principles from moral ones, this issue is a moral issue, not one of property rights.
Secondly, your argument fails in an historical context. For example, you would find a vast majority of Americans descended from someone who entered the USA without papers. For example, when entering the Immigrant Receiving Station in 1919, my Polish immigrant father said there was much mayhem (he thought there'd been a stabbing); in the confusion, approximately 2500 people were shooed through the station into the streets with no paperwork review at all. Legal immigrants? Not really. Illegal? Hardly.

Does that mean therefore that, despite my birth in 1955 in Virginia, you'd demand rescinding my nationality as well? It appears so!

Or, considering the American government blatantly reneging on the 19th century treaty thereby stealing the Black Hills from the Plains Indians, your argument suggests that America should revoke current property owners’ rights and revert much of South Dakota and Wyoming back to the reservation Indians.

Ultimately, Bob, for Christians, this argument about birthrights is an issue of justice and morality. Your argument doesn’t hold up. The 14th Amendment must stand as it is.

Very well said Jennifer. You

Very well said Jennifer. You perfectly state logical arguments and point out his fallacies. One of the factors that led to the passage of the 14th Amendment re: American citizenship was to creat a national and common identity as well as to defeat the idea that certain people (e.g. African slaves) could be counted as 3/5 of a person and were considere property. For this person to equvalent undocumented aliens to property is damn insulting to the U.S. Constitution and to all good Americans.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. Links are not allowed and comments with them will be moderated or deleted. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.