From Dred Scott to the Chinese Exclusion Act, America has a dark history of trying to deny citizenship to certain groups.
by Amanda Terkel
The
case of Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents,
went to the Supreme Court in the late 19th century on the issue of
birthright citizenship rights for immigrants' children who were born in
the United States.
Prominent figures in the Republican Party in recent
days have expressed renewed interest in repealing the 14th Amendment to
the Constitution, which would take away the automatic right of those
born in the United States to become citizens of the country. Even a
number of the
Republican cabal pretenderl candidates argue that this privilege has been abused and is no longer necessary in modern times.
But rescinding birthright citizenship privileges would return the
U.S. to some of its darkest chapters, when politicians tried to deny
citizenship rights to black people and when the country was overtaken by
anti-Chinese xenophobia.
Walter Dellinger has been trying to push back against the
anti-birthright citizenship movement since the mid-1990s, when he served
as a top legal official in President Bill Clinton's administration and
testified against such an effort before a House committee.
He told The Huffington Post Tuesday that the country is at a
"critical moment" in this debate, when a major political party may
nominate as its presidential candidate someone who embraces the end of
birthright citizenship.
"It would fundamentally change the identity of America," Dellinger
said, "to create a permanent caste that was excluded from citizenship
generation after generation."
Citizenship by birth has been enshrined in
common law since
America's founding. The first time in the nation's history that this
right was taken away for a group of people was in 1857, when the Supreme
Court issued its shameful Dred Scott decision holding that black
people, either free or slave, could never become U.S. citizens.
Dred Scott unsuccessfully sued for his freedom, leading to the Supreme Court's infamous 1857 decision, Dred Scott v. Sandford.
Eleven years later, the U.S. rectified that mistake and ratified the
14th Amendment, which
states, "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."
One of the arguments critics put forth for doing away with this
provision is that it has served its purpose. Slavery is gone, they say,
and it's no longer applicable to modern times.
In 2010, Paul (Republican-Ky.), who is now running for pretender,
argued that it might be time to "amend the Constitution because I don't
think the 14th Amendment was meant to apply to illegal aliens. It was
meant to
apply to the children of slaves."
But in fact, the framers of the 14th Amendment were thinking of
immigrants' children, as they made clear in an 1866 debate on the Senate
floor.
Cowan (Republican-Pa.) was an opponent of birthright citizenship
and specifically worried about the measure leading to an influx of
immigrants. When he asked whether the proposed legislation would cover
children of immigrants, Conness (Republican-Calif.), a supporter,
said it would:
COWAN: I am really desirous to have a legal definition of
"citizenship of the United States." ... Is the child of the Chinese
immigrant in California a citizen? [...]
CONNESS: The proposition before us...relates...to the children
begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare
that they shall be citizens. ... I am in favor of doing so.
There was a substantial amount of racism wrapped up in fears about
granting birthright citizenship to immigrants' children. Cowan said
senators should consider what would happen if California, for instance,
were "overrun by a flood of immigration of the
Mongol race."
Anti-Chinese sentiment was high in the late 19th century, with people
worried that Chinese immigrants -- who were viewed as racially inferior
-- would come in and take away the jobs of hardworking Americans. In
response, politicians passed the
Chinese Exclusion Act, which essentially stopped Chinese immigration and barred Chinese residents of the U.S. from becoming citizens.
Officials also tried to stop the American-born children of Chinese
immigrants from becoming citizens. Wong Kim Ark was born in San
Francisco to Chinese immigrants. When the U.S. government refused to
grant him citizenship, he challenged the decision under the 14th
Amendment, and his case went to the Supreme Court. The Court affirmed
in
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that immigrants' children born in the United States are entitled to citizenship.
The Supreme Court noted in its majority opinion that the importance
of birthright citizenship was indicated by the fact that it was codified
as an amendment, rather than as a regular law.
"The same congress, shortly afterwards, evidently thinking it unwise, and perhaps
unsafe,
to leave so important a declaration of rights to depend upon an
ordinary act of legislation, which might be repealed by any subsequent
congress, framed the fourteenth amendment of the constitution," the
justices wrote.
Dellinger warned that people who want to get rid of birthright citizenship should think more carefully about the implications.
"Today, it serves a very important function, that no one can go back
to previous generations and find out that your claim to be a citizen is
faulty because your grandparent or great-grandparents was not lawfully
in the country," he said. "That's the critical importance of wiping the
slate clean."
"If it weren't for birthright citizenship, people could go back and
say, 'We found out your great-grandparent arrived at Ellis Island under a
different name, and therefore none of her descendants are citizens
either,'" Dellinger added. "Birthright citizenship eliminates all of
those questions."
