The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1868 as part of a group of amendments that dealt with challenges of reconstructing our nation following the Civil War.
Section 1 of the 14th Amendment addressed the rights and status of former slaves and well as people who had left the Union and joined the Confederacy.
It clarified provisions for citizenship, due process, and equal rights under the law, stating:
“All persons born or naturalized in former 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.”
When the 14th Amendment was first proposed, it was bitterly contested by the formerly Confederate states because it meant that former slaves would have all the rights of citizenship, including the right to vote.
By adopting and enforcing the 14th Amendment, the United States set an example for the world as an international beacon for freedom and human rights. The 14th Amendment is the legal foundation for subsequent major civil rights advances, such as the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v Board of Education that brought an end to racial segregation in schools. But the 14th Amendment does not only serve liberal causes. For example, the National Rifle Association cites the 14th Amendment when it opposes some laws that restrict gun sales or ownership.
The “birthright” citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment establishes that any baby born in the U.S. “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is automatically a citizen.
Why does the birthright provision refer to “jurisdiction”? Under what circumstances could a baby be born in the U.S. but not be subject to jurisdiction of the U.S. government? Well, this could happen if the parents were foreign diplomats because their diplomatic immunity would strip the U.S. of jurisdiction.
Among the developed nations of the world, the U.S.A. and Canada stand out as global human rights leaders in part because they embrace birthright as a basis for citizenship. Yet, there are those who insist that birthright citizenship is not part of what has made America great, but instead is a threat to our national security.
Really? How great could America be if our national security can be threatened by babies? [I’m not counting the big baby currently occupying the White House. He is an obvious threat.]
Or is this national security argument better understood as a shallow smokescreen for racial, ethnic, and religious hate?
Pandering to the voices of hate, Congress has, since at least 2007, repeatedly entertained so-called “Birthright Citizenship Act” bills. These proposals would limit birthright citizenship by narrowing the legal meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” In the current version of the bill, a baby born in the U.S. would be a birthright citizen only if at least one parent is a citizen, is a lawful resident alien, or is a member of the U.S. military.
Strangely, for purposes other than determining citizenship, a baby born to parents outside of these categories would still fall under the legal jurisdiction of the United States.
If the Birthright Citizen Act was passed, it is not clear that it would survive Constitutional challenge. Because ultimately, the meaning of the Constitution is up to the courts. That’s part of our separation of powers, which does make America Great.
Since 2011, Rep. Phil Roe of East Tennessee’s First District, a doctor who boasts of having delivered over 5000 babies, has repeatedly co-sponsored this mean-spirited anti-baby legislative proposal.
Dr. Roe, has your heart so hardened and your moral compass so rusted that you could look into the eyes of a child you delivered and say: “you didn’t choose the right parents, so get out, you don’t belong here”?
That’s what your repeated co-sponsorship of the Birthright Citizenship Act says you are willing and ready to do.
How sad.
East Tennessee needs a new Congressman, a responsible man who has not lost his heart and who still remembers his original oath to “First, do no harm.”