14th Amendment/Slavery/Immigration Reform Nexus?
In case you haven't noticed, our immigration policies are under scrutiny. Illegals cross into our country without fear of retribution. They have their children here because those children automatically become citizens of this, our, country. Some states grant illegals access to welfare payments, and other government monies.
To put it succinctly, the problem is out of hand!
This is not news. But, something I heard from a guest on the Laura Ingraham show today put a new perspective on the problem. According to the guest, whose name I did not catch, the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to those born within our boundaries, was instituted to support slavery. Protecting the property rights of slave owners was, according to the guest, the major motivation for creating the rights of citizenship outlined in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
I have a general skepticism about the current relevance of any law created to support slavery, segregation. or racism; even if other laws now seem to countermand the original sin law.
Is the 14th Amendment an example of a law that has no purpose today? Should it be reversed simply on the grounds that it was created for an unjust reason? Is it a remnant from an uglier time that is having unfortunate consequences upon our integrity as a nation today?
I ask the questions, now I'll listen to the response.
Update: 3/19- As has been noted in the comments section, the 14th Amendment was ratified after the abolition of slavery, in 1868, thereby rendering it impossible that its purpose was as I understood the speaker to state. There is a connection to slavery, notably, that the 14th did guarantee full citizenship to former slaves. Though the 15th was needed to clarify that former slaves would be guaranteed the vote. But, the contention which I thought was made, that the 14th was for the support of slaveowners, is false. I probably misunderstood his point.
There is a nexus, just not the one I heard. And, now I wonder if the guest speaker's point was that the 14th is now used for purposes for which it was not written; as it was written to codify the rights of citizenship for former slaves, not to permit foreigner's to force this country to adopt their children.
[This matter does provide me an opportunity to mention which Party was responsible for passage of the 14th, and the rights given to former slaves. And, I am always glad for the opportunity to remind people of the founding principles of Lincoln's Party.]
Comments
I didn't hear the show, Rick, but you must have either heard wrong or the guy is a whack job. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, so there was no slavery when the 14th bestowed citizenship on them and provided all citizens with equal protection under the law. The "born or naturalized" clause was written specifically to bind the southern states to recognize former slaves as citizens.
Perhaps what the guest was saying was that the clause was intended only to apply to persons born or naturalized at the time of ratification of the Amendment, or only to former slaves, or maybe he was claiming the drafters could never have known the problems such a stupid concept as "natural born" would cause.
There's only about 300 million problems with this idea, and most of us are among them. If the high-minded lawyers who drafted the 14th Amendment never intended it to apply to immigrants, how did millions of illiterate "wretched refuse" immediately figure out what a boon it was for themselves and their descendants and begin to throw themselves into boats by the millions?
Or perhaps he was taking note of the fact that the 14th was written at a time when slavery still existed, by people who tolerated slavery until a few years before. And Article II provides the notion that people born here are citizens, by prohibiting the President from being anything but a "natural born citizen". The 14th Amendment ensured that (as Taney tried to deny in Dred Scot) the decendants of Africans would be treated equally by this idea.
Posted by: Chris![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.theblackrepublican.net/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 18, 2005 02:03 AM
I went to Laura's site to the guest name, but, that segment is not listed.
Also, I should mention that it wasn't Laura interviewing, she took a day off, I didn't the name of the guest host.
Posted by: Richard | March 18, 2005 07:44 AM
WHAT A GREAT IDEA!!! SOMEONE IS THINKING..... I GUESS THERE IS MORE THAN THAN ONE WAY TO SKIN A CAT. OOPS! PETA MIGHT GET MAD AT THAT STATEMENT.
Posted by: SARAH | March 18, 2005 10:59 AM
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
'Nuff said re slavery.
Posted by: Occam's Beard | March 18, 2005 07:12 PM
Thank you Occam, I have seen you around the Web often enough to know that your information is reliable, so I scarcely feel the need to check that date. But, I did anyway, and that is correct, ratified in 1868. I will add an update to this post linking to explanations of when and why.
And, I glad to have you as a reader here.
Posted by: Richard | March 19, 2005 08:49 AM
Heh, I thought I said that already. ;-)
Unfortunately Occam, most students today (heck, probably most people...) don't know when the Civil War happened, so throwing out the date and saying, "'Nuff said" is usually not sufficient.
Posted by: Chris![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.theblackrepublican.net/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 19, 2005 09:02 AM
LOL, too true Chris. Sorry, I didn't intend to not give you credit, but, hey OB did give a date, which you failed to do. :)
Posted by: Richard | March 19, 2005 09:50 AM
Not to mention that the 13th amendment in 1865 outlawed slavery.
Posted by: Toad | March 21, 2005 12:04 PM