The political showdown over the 14th Amendment has a woman's touch. A commentary by Gebe Martinez, Ann Garcia, Jessica Arons at the Center for American Progress dissects the politics and the psychology of the campaign to change the 14th Amendment to dismantle birthright citizenship. Aside from the many legal flaws in their argument and the sheer ridiculousness of trying to change the constitution to clamp down on immigration, the rhetoric stems from a rich history of white patriarchy in American politics. Terms like "anchor baby" and "drop and leave" reduce Latina immigrants to the status of breeders and criminals, negating not only their humanity but their right to motherhood as well.
The authors point out that the demonization of women of color is a pretty common theme throughout the history of racial justice struggles:
This is also an ugly strategy fueled by sexism and racism. It taps into a long history of population control--government efforts to curb growth among disfavored populations. During slavery, the children slaveowners sired with their slaves were deemed slaves themselves who could be sold as chattel, thereby increasing the wealth of the owner rather than the size of his family. Chinese women in the 1800s were labeled prostitutes and denied visas to join their husbands who labored on our railroads. And black women, Native American women, and Latinas were routinely sterilized either without their knowledge or without their consent as recently as the 1970s.
Conservatives' rhetoric on this issue is particularly insulting, likening the human birthing process to that of farm animals....By portraying immigrant women as less than human--that they "drop" babies as animals drop their offspring--immigration opponents stir up fears that foreigners specifically come here to have children in order to derive citizenship from their children, or claim government benefits.
To understand the gender dimension of institutionalized racism, we can look back to the evolution of the earliest efforts to formalize racial hierarchy. For example, historians have noted that in Virginia's colonial plantation society, laws and customs were framed around the goals of entrenching Black enslavement, controlling Black women's fertility, and generally bolstering white men's legal and social privilege.
As for the 14th Amendment, as Victor Goode pointed out last week, the sanctity of the family was one of the main principles used to defend birthright citizenship in the courts--a legal battle that remains unsettled.
Drawing from history going back to the era of slavery, we see the underlying objective behind the dehumanization of Latina mothers in the political arena: to obliterate the concept of the immigrant family in the public consciousness. To erase their presence in American communities and their contributions to the social fabric (not to mention the inequities they face in reproductive health and labor rights). There's a sinister logic to it: Latina women aren't mothers; they drop babies. Latino fathers don't support their families; they steal jobs. So the undocumented are blurred into a faceless horde that threatens to crowd out deserving U.S. citizens. This rubric teaches "real Americans" that their status must be vigilantly guarded, because citizenship isn't a birthright, but a privilege, reserved for real people.
Cross-posted from ColorLines.
Follow Michelle Chen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/meeshellchen
14th Amendment Plan Too Gonzo for Gonzo*
The next chapter in the culture war?
Napolitano: 14th talk 'is just wrong'
The Fourteenth Amendment is in Jeopardy
The Fourteenth Amendment and The Flag
Linda Chavez's misunderstanding of the Citizenship Clause
Amid immigration debate, Democrats battle GOP over Fourteenth Amendment
In Arizona we do support a change to the 14th, or possibly a Supreme Court challenge. In order to understand why you might do some research here: http://www.vdare.com/
"Okay, so Barak Obama might have a birth certificate, but ... his parents! Ahh! THEY weren't legal (say...), so OBAMA isn't legal either and John McCain Is The Real President!"
(sigh. if only I were kidding.)
The claims that it is sexist is absurd as are the comparisons to alleged abuses in the past. It is ridiculous to bring in the potential abuses that could have taken place when ownership of human beings was reality over 150 years ago.
"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."
(The remaining sections were obviously to give a big "screw you" to the former Confederates, so it seems to me that anything you might be referring to, Austin, must be somewhere in the above-quoted two sentences.)
And... I'm afraid that I just don't see any place in which "the people who wrote the Amendment specifically excluded them." The text literally says "all persons born," and, so far as I can see, for better or for worse says nothing about the status of the parents.
They probably could have written this Amendment better than they did, but I fail to see the clauses, inferences, exclusions, or motivations that you mention.
This means under the jurisdiction of the United States and not subject to a foreign power. Illegal aliens are subject to a foreign power. The author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard, stated; "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians -- because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.””
The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)
House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.
Seriously, if another person plays the woman/race card one more time ima shoot 'em. Keep playing those cards when there's no reason and soon they'll mean nothing. Did anybody else see the sketch on The Daily Show about this? Cause they were right.
Do these nitwits actually think hundreds of pregnant women from Mexico walk across miles and miles of dry, dusty desert just to reach America, have a baby and then leave again? Please! Stop insulting our intelligence and making a mockery of your own alleged intelligence.
They come here so they can have their babies in a safe, sanitary environment, and hopefully get a job to support that baby, not to mention other children they may have. If they leave, it's because they can't find a job or they're forced to leave. Even then they will try again and again to come back because that's the only glimmer of hope they have.
Where?
When?
"Latina mothers" and "illegal immigrant mothers" don't mean the same thing!
Are the kids more or less dangerous than the parents?
How has illegal immigration put you in danger?
I am saddened to see such a lack of human compassion. It's great to have diverse views, but the demagoguery about real human beings is not only heart-wrenching, it solves nothing.
Yeah. It is all about "gender" and "race." Right? It is because of qualities that we invented that are self-reported and self-identified. you are so right.
I love how it is only dealing with "women of color" when it is about North America. Those people who are descended from Europeans are somehow now a different race from the rest of those people who are descended from Europeans. It is the only way it can be.
" There's a sinister logic to it: Latina women aren't mothers; they drop babies. Latino fathers don't support their families; they steal jobs. So the undocumented are blurred into a faceless horde that threatens to crowd out deserving U.S. citizens."
Yeah. It is all about them "Mex'cans" and only about them "Mex'cans." Lets completely ignore the children of Europeans and Asians because that does not work with your argument. There are no women in Korea who come to the US visa-free to get their children out of military service. There are no Chinese mothers who come the US to get citizenship for future education and career opportunities (as well as sponsors for the family). There are no Europeans doing that same thing. Or Canadians.
Culturally-specific social constructs. The author is using them in a way to further her argument while implying that they are natural phenomena.
the coin about "women of color" in Colonial America. One of my ancestors of that era was
a Cherokee maiden (said to be a princess in family lore, but aren't they all?). Archives from
the period support that heritage. The Native women who married whites were usually
shunned by the tribe so that another kind of "segregation" occurred as they lived with
their husbands and offspring in the "white world."
Later, no one in our family was ever entitled to benefits of Cherokee citizenship because,
after numerous court rulings, it was said that "they never lived among the rest of the tribe."
Curious little discriminatory practice, again against women and their right to inherit.
SB1070. FAIR. The entire "anchor baby" fabrication. Let's not pretend any longer that one group in particular isn't being targeted.
Just admit it -- you are in favor of open borders because it makes you feel morally superior, and you don't have to pay for any of it because you're a 47 percenter.
Or put it this way, if we don't end birth right citizenship then we have to end Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. We can't afford these benefits in a offshored, H-1Bed, illegal immigrant world.
So pick what you want. Either we respect citizenship is for Americans and we have benefits or we say anyone can be a citizen and its like living in Thunderdome.
Though please let me know if I misunderstood your last sentence- it's a bit unclear.
"The broader issue is, you know, why are we having a discussion about -- quote, unquote -- "anchor babies." If a person has a child here, that child cannot petition for their parents or a sibling to be here in the United States for a period of 10 years. And that petition can only begin after they are 21 years old.
So, the fact -- for people to suggest that people are coming here and having babies as a way to anchor themselves on an undocumented basis in this country is just not correct. The law doesn't bear that out. Just because you have a child here doesn't mean that you can't be deported tomorrow. It doesn't mean that you get any special preference with respect to your immigration status.
The fact is that nobody can -- that a child who is born here cannot petition on behalf of their parents unless they have left the country for 10 years."
Waiting 21 years to have your American kid petition, what Anchia did not mention is that the petitioner has to also prove that they can afford to take care of the petitioned... typically 21 year olds do not have the wealth to afford the process.
We heard some of this same silliness about Obama... because he had a few childhood years out of country, he born in a state newer to the nation than McCain is old but the bottom line in the rants is RaceBaitHate.
I just think this is hysterically comical because if hospitals aren't asking about the status of the parent then how is the information being recorded?