Citizenship is overrated
As probably all of you know, my M.A. thesis at CSU Sacramento was on California's failure to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment until 1959, ninety-one years after two-thirds of the states ratified it. Now, forty-eight years later, a California Republican is co-sponsoring a bill in the House of Representatives that would gut part of that amendment. First, a refresher:
Amendment XIV
Section 1. 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.
The first sentence has formed the basis of American immigration policy since 1868, specifically the concept that any child born on American soil is granted American citizenship, regardless of the citizenship status of the child's parents. Illegal aliens have used this clause to get their foot in the door out of the belief that if their children are American citizens the government might allow the parents to stay in order to maintain the family unit. This "anchor babies" phenomenon has been an irritant to immigration reformers for decades. Well, as the Sacramento Bee reports, Sacramento-area Congressman Dan Lungren (R-Gold River), who represents the moderate wing of the state Republican Party (you non-Californians have no idea how nutty the conservative wing of the California Republican Party is. Remember Reagan? It's worse now), has joined with those immigration reform groups to attempt to "clarify" Section 1 to apply only to children born to legal citizens or legal aliens. According to Lungren, our current liberal immigration policy "is a tremendous incentive for someone who wants to give their children a better opportunity in life." Naturally, the opportunity for better opportunities must be eliminated. Snarkiness aside, the odds of Lungren's legislation succeeding is slim to none so why am I even commenting on this? Because one quote in the article really bothered me:
According to Bob Dane of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, "the only beneficiaries of the 14th Amendment appear to be illegals."
Really? Does anybody familiar with the Civil Rights Movement want to handle this one? Sure, not many modern Americans benefit from some of the other sections of the Fourteenth Amendment. The debts incurred by the secessionists were discharged a long time ago, and there aren't any rebels still alive to deny office-holding to. The issue of representation in Congress does not affect many Americans (except those who are illegally disenfranchised, of course). But due process, equality before the law, and the rights of state and national citizenship (which entails the right to participate in public life: voting, courts, representation in government) are pretty damned important, Mr. Dane. But sure, let's alter some more of our basic civil liberties in order to keep the rest of the world at bay. We've been doing it for six years and one day now.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. 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.
The first sentence has formed the basis of American immigration policy since 1868, specifically the concept that any child born on American soil is granted American citizenship, regardless of the citizenship status of the child's parents. Illegal aliens have used this clause to get their foot in the door out of the belief that if their children are American citizens the government might allow the parents to stay in order to maintain the family unit. This "anchor babies" phenomenon has been an irritant to immigration reformers for decades. Well, as the Sacramento Bee reports, Sacramento-area Congressman Dan Lungren (R-Gold River), who represents the moderate wing of the state Republican Party (you non-Californians have no idea how nutty the conservative wing of the California Republican Party is. Remember Reagan? It's worse now), has joined with those immigration reform groups to attempt to "clarify" Section 1 to apply only to children born to legal citizens or legal aliens. According to Lungren, our current liberal immigration policy "is a tremendous incentive for someone who wants to give their children a better opportunity in life." Naturally, the opportunity for better opportunities must be eliminated. Snarkiness aside, the odds of Lungren's legislation succeeding is slim to none so why am I even commenting on this? Because one quote in the article really bothered me:
According to Bob Dane of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, "the only beneficiaries of the 14th Amendment appear to be illegals."
Really? Does anybody familiar with the Civil Rights Movement want to handle this one? Sure, not many modern Americans benefit from some of the other sections of the Fourteenth Amendment. The debts incurred by the secessionists were discharged a long time ago, and there aren't any rebels still alive to deny office-holding to. The issue of representation in Congress does not affect many Americans (except those who are illegally disenfranchised, of course). But due process, equality before the law, and the rights of state and national citizenship (which entails the right to participate in public life: voting, courts, representation in government) are pretty damned important, Mr. Dane. But sure, let's alter some more of our basic civil liberties in order to keep the rest of the world at bay. We've been doing it for six years and one day now.