The 14th Amendment: Important

Here's how far we as a country have come: the conservative wing of the American right have begun to discuss the possibility of changing the 14th Amendment.  For those of you who are not scholars, and for any Real Americans who have accidentally stumbled across this blog (presumably during a Google search for "how to survive the socialist future"), the first section of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:

"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."  

There are four more sections, which provide proportional representation in the House, prevent anyone from holding office who has been part of a rebellion against the government, deal with public debt, and allow Congress to enforce the amendment.  The really important bit, though, is that first section.  That's the part of the amendment we fought a civil war over.  It prevents slavery (although the 13th Amendment outlaws it) and ensures minorities have the same rights as any other citizen of the United States.

The amendment was adopted July 9, 1868.  That's 142 years.  And in that time the 14th amendment has been a major part of the legal basis for the women's rights movement, the civil rights movement, and basically any other movement looking to protect minority rights in the U.S.  And now it's a problem for many members of the far right.

Of course, one could argue that it has always been a problem for them.  It does, after all, protect minority rights.  The extreme conservative wing of American politics isn't exactly a huge fan of those.  But the really "controversial" section (for a given value of manufactured controversy) of the law is that first sentence.

"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."  In fact, it's not even really the whole sentence.  It's those first three words: "all persons born."

Why shouldn't children born in the United States be American citizens?  Two scary words, in scare quotes: "brown people."  No, wait.  Wrong scary words.  "Illegal immigrants."  Scared yet?  I know, they do sound like hardened criminals.  How about this: "Anchor babies."

Yikes! I can barely type, my hands are shaking so hard.  People are using babies, live babies, as anchors!  The poor things will drown!

Oh, wait.  That's not what anchor babies are.  No, anchor babies are mythical children, which illegal immigrants have born in the U.S., in order to guarantee themselves citizenship.  I say mythical because, and this is what really makes them scary, nobody has ever seen one.

There's two major problems with the anchor baby theory.  First, the 14th Amendment provides citizenship to people born in the U.S., not their parents.  So I guess it could be used as an alternate path to citizenship, once the children become legal adults and initialize the long, complex citizenship process for their parents.  This would take several years longer than, say, marrying an American citizen, or getting a student or work visa and then applying for citizenship, paths to citizenship which are already incredibly difficult.

Okay, so maybe anchor babies aren't the terrifying seeds of the new Mexican army they're made out to be.  What other effects would getting rid of that part of the 14th Amendment have?

Well, first off, your children wouldn't be American citizens.  Nobody born in the U.S. would automatically be a citizen.  So we'd have to find a new way to define citizenship.  Maybe something like this: "All persons born in the United States to two American citizens..." But that's a bit circular, since we've already redefined citizenship.  Maybe "two natural born American citizens?"  Then all we have to do is define "natural born" in a way that doesn't kick out everyone but American Indians.  Of course, we could just do what the conservatives secretly want us to do, and say "two white American citizens."  But as the book "A History of White People" proves, even defining "white" isn't exactly easy.

But the bit that really makes me cringe, really makes me ashamed to call myself an American, isn't that changing the amendment would be a legal nightmare.  It's that this is even being discussed.  It's that 49 percent of Americans reportedly support changing the 14th Amendment.  That America has become so xenophobic, so utterly terrified of anyone who looks different or worships differently or speaks a different language that we are willing to change one of our most fundamental laws, one of the things that makes us truly American, just out of that fear.  

In a 1987 speech on the bicentennial of the Constitution's adaptation, Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall said this: "While the Union survived the civil war, the Constitution did not. In its place arose a new, more promising basis for justice and equality, the 14th Amendment, ensuring protection of the life, liberty, and property of all persons against deprivations without due process, and guaranteeing equal protection of the laws."

This is how significant the 14th Amendment was.  It represented a complete change for America, a whole new "basis for justice and equality," even more significant than the Constitution and Bill of Rights as it was originally penned.  

And now 49 percent of America wants to change it.  Wants to regress to a period before America was, truly, America.  

To that 49 percent I say, then, this: You are not truly Americans.