strict constitutionalists? or restrict?

[novapsyche]

In case you hadn't heard, there are some folks, including those who should know better, who want to "examine" repealing the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.

To refresh your memory, the 14th Amendment proffers the equal protection clause. Along with the 13th & 15th Amendments, it was one of the legal masterstrokes that abolished slavery (that is, gave those previously considered nonpersons citizenship as well as equal protection under the law). To stand here today, a sesquicentennium from the start of the Civil War, it would seem that clause would have stood the test of time.

But now here come certain conservative elements who want to "revisit" the 14th Amendment, because no one could have anticipated the rise of (I use this term under duress) 'anchor babies', those children born to non-US citizens on native soil who are, under said Amendment, granted US citizenship (another one of its clauses).

This type of talk had been relegated to the chambers of such as the Tea Party until recently. Now, distinguished Congresspersons such as Senators John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Grassley, Jeff Sessions and Lindsey Graham have given voice to this notion.

Let no one forget that it is the 14th Amendment that has been one of the hallmarks of civil liberties since its inception. Indeed, it was under its auspices that Prop 8 was overturned in California yesterday (thanks for the link, pgdudda). It was the 14th Amendment that effectually overturned the Dred Scott decision less than a generation before and that paved the way for Brown v. Board of Education 100 years later.

In addition to guaranteeing equal protection, it also established due process (its third clause). As such, it undergirds Roe v. Wade as well as Miranda v. Arizona (as watered down as this current court has made that). It would be wise for one and all to fully consider what the ramifications of repeal would mean for day-to-day, hand-to-mouth reality of United States citizens (and residents, and tourists, too).

Such talk would be laughable if it were not also so dangerous. Under the guise of "keeping the illegals out" (another ridiculous notion in a nation of immigrants), certain moneyed and landed lawmakers suggest knocking one of the pegs that steadies the foundation of what we in the States have come to know as modern democracy.

We live in critical times.

See also:

In the Senate, where does immigration politics end and racism start?
The Daily Show, Aug. 3, 2010: Born in the USA
Sexist, Racist Republicans Compare Immigrant Women to Farm Animals
Lou Dobbs: Keep the 14th Amendment

Comments

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

A few comments:

1) I hadn't heard the term "anchor babies" until today, and this posting is the third time I've seen it. Is it a new term, or has it been around a long time and just now made the national stage?

2) Re: "under duress", I don't think that means what you think it means, unless someone was threatening or otherwise coercing you to use terms you don't like. :)

3) John McCain is rapidly heading into the camp of "barking mad", which is a sad thing to see for a senator who I once (around 2000) really respected despite his unfortunate party alignment.

Some of the rhetoric coming out of the far (and even not-so-far) right these days is both scary and dangerous. Even if it's just campaign-season fire-up-the-base nonsense, it'll stick with a certain segment of the population. There's really nothing that can be done about it except to point out as often as possible how ridiculous it really is, because short of eliminating the first amendment they can bloviate as loudly and crudely as they want. Witness: Fox News. Sorry, forgot the air-quotes: "News".

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

I hadn't heard of the term until this brouhaha came out of left field.

I sincerely feel that the media and thus broadcast society has coerced their audience into using that term.

I don't even want to talk about how John McCain neglects his principles. I brought him up because he is a significant conservative. (In some other strand of the Multiverse, he's the President.)

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

If you're interested, another friend of mine just posted a bit about this too, here.

[silversliver.livejournal.com]

The Daily Show makes even thinking about this insanity bearable. The 14th amendment is a wonderful thing, and repealing raises the question (after all the expansions of citizenship in the last 150ish years) of who can and cannot be a born-citizen, and I think could lead to generational disenfranchisement and difficult naturalization processes for Latinos and other incoming persons. I think that's a slippery slope actually worth worrying about, as opposed to the one touted by homophobes that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to marriage with farm animals.

For the record, the term "anchor babies" has been in use for 25+ years, but primarily in the southwest where tensions have been highest over Mexican immigration for much longer than the country at large. I think "American-born children of undocumented immigrants" is the best way to call them, but that 1) is a mouthful, and 2) has nuance and precision that is generally ignored in current political discourse. I wish there were a more concise term that didn't perpetuate the racist connotations.

[mazecraft.livejournal.com]

Haven't been on in awhile but I am catching up with your posts.

"We live in critical times" seems like a gross understatement and yet I don't see anyone else in my vast net of friends and colleagues besides yourself even keeping the light on these events. I fear we may live to see the total undermining of the ideals that once gave us solidarity. Just over 200 years is a short life span for a civilization. I doubt most people really appreciate how quickly this could all come crumbling down around them if they allow it.