Notice the role of federal law in specifying exactly to whom birthright citizenship extends.
So, unconstitutional?
Maybe not.
But it does propose to limit it in a very sensible way analogous to limits other democracies facing a problem of illegal immigration have put on a basic rule of birthright citizenship.
And, anyway, the objection that something is unconstitutional, if valid, neither shows it’s a bad idea nor argues it should not be done.
Instead, it argues for an amendment.
Or maybe just a friendly act of interpretation by a sympathetic Supreme Court.
But in the present case it is doubtful anything so (ahem) activist would really be necessary.
Who doubts, after all, that the intent of the 14th was only to protect the freedmen and their descendants?
Who can forget that the constitution in its passages concerned with slaves and slavery repeatedly refers to enslaved blacks as "persons," as in "persons held to service," in a way the 14th clearly echoes?
Who really believes it was the intent of those who devised or those who ratified the 14th to give birthright citizenship to the children of people here illegally?
There is no reason to assume it was and good reason to assume not.
And meanwhile, it might be just as well for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to just ignore the liberal view, here, and see what happens.
As for the liberal position, well, it is manifestly indefensible and rests entirely on the unavowable and racist purpose of browning America.
No comments:
Post a Comment