The protection of the Constitution applies to all that live by it

An immigration case out of Chicago, Chaidez v USA (1), makes us question who shall receive the benefits of Constitutional justice and how the community should respond when justice isn’t applied.

The case is about a woman from Chicago, Roselva Chaidez, who was born in Mexico.  She has lived in the United States since the 1970s.  By many accounts Chaidez was the unwitting participant in an insurance scam.  The many details of the case are less important than the resulting issues, but it is clear that she was not involved in any violence and even the fed’s let her plead guilty and let her off with a fine.

Her lawyer worked the deal for Chaidez, encouraging her to tell the truth and end the case.  He did tell Chaidez about the direct punishment she could expect by pleading guilty.  What he didn’t tell her is that it would not allow her to apply for citizenship.  It isn’t clear if the lawyer knew that or not.  It should be expected that if a lawyer makes a strong suggestion that someone like Chaidez should plead guilty, he would inform her of all the collateral damage that would result.  That is the reason an expert is hired in any field, to help understand the short and long term consequences.

When Chaidez did apply for citizenship, she was picked up for deportation.  She was able obtain another lawyer to challenge the case in the courts.  It has found its way to the Supreme Court.

Chaidez’s new lawyer has built the case on a ruling by the Supreme Court after Chaidez’s guilty plea and conviction.  At the base for her case is Padilla v Kentucky.  In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that non-citizens that are not advised that pleading guilty to a felony means automatic deportation were deprived of their Sixth and Fourteenth amendment rights to effective counsel.  Chaidez’s is the same situation, but since she pleaded guilty before the Padilla case, the United States is asking that the conviction stand.  The court is being asked if the ruling only applies to cases after Padilla or should it be retroactive.

The Obama administration is taking a hard stand on the issue.  The administration said that, “[it] will have a significant impact on the federal government’s efforts to enforce this nation’s immigration laws against those who have become removable as a result of pre-Padilla criminal convictions.”

Groups siding with Chaidez have taken an equaling strong stand in opposition.  “The lack of remedy,” the groups assert, “[for pre-Padilla ineffective counsel] imposes harsh consequences on countless non-citizens facing detention and deportation as a result of wrongfully procured plea-based convictions.” (3)

Whatever the legal arguments are, there are four practical issues for the community to consider.  First, the community can’t tolerate ineffective counsel for defendants when charged with a crime.  Second, while prosecutors have a responsibility to pursue their cases as aggressively as possible, they also have a responsibility to keep defendants, who are presumed innocent until proven guilty, aware of the full consequences of the charges applied against them.  Also, there can be no finality to a case when Constitutional rights come to light after convictions, such as Supreme Court rulings that apply directly to the defendant’s case.  Finally, being a non-citizens living in the country doesn’t mean that that you are not protected by the Constitution. 

The right to counsel is a Sixth Amendment issue.  It clearly states that we all have the right “to have the Assistance of Counsel for his [her] defence.” (4)  To believe any other way means that people could be picked up and sentenced to prison with no trial.  After all, if they are guilty until proven innocent, let’s just get them off the street right away, no need for a trial. 

An innocent person has all the rights and privileges of the community and should expect that the community will defend them against all threats to their life, safety and freedoms.  So, if people are innocent until proven guilty, the logical responsibility of the community is to assure that they are properly defended and understand all the consequences if they are found guilty.  The community must be certain that the lawyer the defendant hires, or is provided, is competent enough to understand the obligations of providing a proper defense. 

As for the prosecution, we expect the prosecutor to aggressively pursue their case against a defendant.  Our system has provided this right to the prosecutor.  But, for every right there is an equally important responsibility.  The responsibility here is that the prosecutor will insure that the accused is fully aware of his consequences if convicted of the crime he or she is charged with. 

Once convicted, no matter the circumstances of the conviction, the case can only be final to factual issues not Constitutional issues.  If a person is convicted under a law that made his action criminal and is later changed, the convicted is to receive the benefits of the change.  This prevents laws from being enacted that make an action criminal just to jail someone, then changed once they are convicted.  Why should it be any different for Constitutional issues?  When the Supreme Court makes a ruling on an issue, it needs to have the same effect as changing a law.

Perhaps the most difficult issue for many is the non-citizen status of Chaidez.  The argument may be that since Chaidez is a not a citizen, she doesn’t have an automatic right to receive the full benefits of the Constitution.  (There is a question as to Chaidez’s immigration status.  It is not clear that she is here “illegally?”  But, it doesn’t matter because of the of the amnesty legislation that has been passed since Chaidez’s arrival.  The only issue that is important to this case is her non-citizenship status.)  All the time that Chaidez was here, she was expected to follow all the laws that the Constitution allows.  Yet, as soon as she runs in to trouble with the law, she is not given the full benefit of the Constitution.  In this case, she didn’t receive a proper defense as dictated by the Constitution.

This is not the intent of the authors of the Constitution.  They intended the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution to apply to all.  It is simple to say this because of our own interpretation of the words of the document.  But, this time the proof comes from none other than a founding father. James Madison said, “But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that, whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws than they are parties to the Constitution; yet it will not be disputed that, as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their protection and advantage.” (5)

According to Madison, when someone has the responsibility to live under the laws of the country, they also have the right to the protection of the Constitution.  This is the very essence of a Responsible Community; a balance between rights and responsibilities.  You can’t have one without the other.

(1)  Chaidez v USA (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/chaidez-v-united-states/ )

(2)  Obama administration response (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/05/06/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Opening-the-gate-to-criminal-alien-appeals/UPI-91941336289400/ )

(3)  Response to the administrations statements (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/05/06/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Opening-the-gate-to-criminal-alien-appeals/UPI-91941336289400/ )

(4)  Sixth amendment to the United States Constitution

(5)  James Madison, Debates to the Several State conventions on the adoption of the Constitution (http://books.google.com/books?id=OL3MdoqSb0QC&pg=PA555&lpg=PA555&dq=If+the+banishment+of+an+alien+...+be+not+a+punishment,+and+among+the+severest+of+punishments,+it+will+be+difficult+to+imagine+a+doom+to+which&source=bl&ots=9pGFIPFT-4&sig=t01lRxRxpUI2iT3G8x7C0-EB0EQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PpKmT-2vHYqXgwe88cTPAQ&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=If%20the%20banishment%20of%20an%20alien%20...%20be%20not%20a%20punishment%2C%20and%20among%20the%20severest%20of%20punishments%2C%20it%20will%20be%20difficult%20to%20imagine%20a%20doom%20to%20which&f=false )

Right idea, wrong target

The Republicans in congress would like more aggressive workplace raids to find undocumented workers. That is one the steps to solve the illegal immigration problem that The Responsible Community supports. (End illegal immigration in five steps) But, those they want targeted in the raids will make a political statement and do little to solve the overall problem. 

Under the Obama administration, work place raids in search of undocumented workers have reached new heights. Republicans, with their new majority in the house, are pressing for even more raids. But, they want the raids to seek out undocumented workers to send them back to their country of origin. They aren’t suggesting that the employers of those raids be punished. But, if the raids would focus on the employers, there would be very few undocumented workers taking jobs away from legal workers.

Raids should be conducted to enforce employment law. This must be done on the national level, not the state or local level. Unless every employer understands the risk they take when they use undocumented workers, they will make mistakes at the very least and ignore laws on the most flagrant level.

If raids are focused just on the workers to send them back, then it will be a political statement that will be a mere inconvenience to employers. Perhaps winning votes for the “get tough” Republicans, but doing little to stop the problem. If undocumented workers can’t get a job, they won’t come to the country seeking work.

Let’s have more raids. But, the focus of the raids should be on the employers.

-----

Religious freedom is not absolute

Trilochan Oberoi is a United States citizen that lives in California. He is a Sikh. He has applied for the position of a corrections officer with The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He has passed all the tests, his background check is clean and is deemed tough enough. For all reasons other than one, he should get the job. What is holding back the department from giving it to him? He won’t shave his beard.

Sikh’s in part, believe that they should look like their creator made them. If he cuts his beard (and his hair, which doesn’t appear to be an issue here) he would be violating one of the tenets of his belief. But, the department of corrections’ policy is that every man keep his face clean shaved. This allows for a gas mask to fit properly.

Oberoi is suing to have the department’s policy changed because it would be a violation of his religion to shave his beard.

We all know the quote from the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The word “Congress” in this case, via the Fourteenth Amendment, means any law making or policy setting body in the United States. The California Department of Correction and Rehilibation is a function of the state of California. It appears that “congress” in this case, the legislative branch of California, has a policy that prohibits the free exercise of a religion. End of story.

Well, not so fast.

Never did the Founding Fathers, anyone else that voted in support of the Constitution, anyone that has ruled on cases involving religion or people living in any responsible community believe that it means that the right is absolute. Public safety is the most important issue. Of course, congress should not make laws without any reason, but when the public safety is involved, all rights are subordinate.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s policy that men keep their beards shaved so that a gas mask can fit properly is not a violation of Oberoi’s religious freedom. The policy is there for a reason, so that men can be sent into a situation where tear gas will be used. If the commander of the guards can’t be certain about an individual’s ability to perform at the peak of performance, in this case Oberoi, he should not have the job.

The phrase “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are not just three words strung in any order. They are in order of importance. Life being the most important. If communities can’t help protect the lives of the individuals in the community, all liberties would be in jeopardy. Mandating that every corrections officer shave his beard is a way that the community can help individuals protect the lives of everyone.

-----

Gun rights should be the same every where

In New Jersey, a man from Utah man, Greg Revell, was traveling through a New Jersey airport on his way to somewhere else. In his baggage he had an unloaded hand gun. He told the airport security where he was coming from about the weapon when he checked his bags. He was allowed to check his bags and was just changing planes in New Jersey. His connecting flight was cancelled, so he retrieved his bags and spent the night at a hotel. The next morning he arrives at the airport and does the honest thing and tells airport police about his gun. He is then arrested and spends ten days in jail.

The Supreme Court will decide on Wednesday to hear his case.

If the Fourteenth amendment did anything, it made this one country. Until the amendment was ratified, each state operated nearly independently of all other states and of the federal government. At the time, 36 states had 36 different sets of laws. Some states went as far to not just violate the rights of individuals, but to take them completely away. The Supreme Court supported the right of states to take such action because the Constitution, according to the court, applied only to the Federal government and not to the states. If it hadn’t been for the Civil War and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, they may never have been given back.

It was the intent of the Fourteenth amendment to ensure that the rights of any person in the country was the same as any other person. That just as the Federal government must respect the rights of people so must each state. This passed all the way to local governments because they were set up by states.

Gun ownership is a right as documented in the Constitution. Reasonable regulations can be adopted to ensure that the ownership and use of a gun doesn’t harm anyone, but it can’t be denied. But, there are fifty three different sets of regulations in the country about gun ownership. That includes all fifty states, D.C and Costa Rica. Perhaps more it you count other protected lands and other jurisdictions.

It sounds like Greg Revell hales from a state that allows him to own and carry a gun. After all, if he was not legal, why would he say anything to airport police. Also, Revell was allowed to check his luggage with the gun in the baggage in Utah. The gun didn’t get him into trouble until he spent the night in New Jersey. Of course, that one night turned into ten and now a gun charge on his record.

It is time we federalize gun laws to protect the rights of people that own guns in every state. We are no longer fifty states (or 36 at the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment) that operate independently of each other. The rights of every person in this country should be protect from the patch work of laws that may or may not allow an individual who is legal in one state to be legal in another.

Like immigration and plenty of other issues, gun laws needed to be apply to all in the country and not just each state. It is time to move in that direction so we can all live without fear of our rights.

-----

A cross at a war memorial needs to be removed

So what does it matter that a single cross is at a war memorial in San Diego?

On Mt. Soledad in San Diego, California, there is a war memorial honoring the fallen in the Korean War, a respectable and virtuous thing for a community to do. But, in the center of the memorial it has a single religious symbol, a cross. The cross is arguably the religious symbol solely of Christianity. People have been debating since 1989 that the cross, or any other religious symbol doesn’t belong on this or any government site.  The 9th district court of appeals in California ruled that the cross endorses a single religion over all others. The court sent it back to the lower courts to determine what should be done with the cross.

Keep in mind, the Constitution commands that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” If this has any meaning, it means that through any direct or indirect act of congress, the government cannot establish a law that even appears to endorse religion. By owning the memorial, the federal government has endorsed this memorial and has chosen to keep the religious symbol of a single religion as part of the memorial.

So what does it matter that a single cross is at a war memorial in San Diego? A Jewish war veterans group, who was one of the individuals and groups that fought the presence of the cross in the memorial, said that it excludes veterans that weren’t Christian. So what about the Hindu’s, the Muslims, the Buddhist or the Catholics for that matter since their cross has Jesus on it? As a community, are we to begin to select the symbol of a single religion to represent all religions at government sites? Which we can’t according to the Constitution, nor should we in a Responsible Community. Are we to begin the process of determining what a religion is then place a symbol for each at sites such as this? That would be a confusing and exhausting task because if you would like to see a long list of religions of the world, click here. It would also set up court battles for those individuals that feel their religious beliefs, as minor and subtle as the difference might be from one on the list, are not represented fairly.

It is a very wise and thoughtful concept to not have a single religion established by any legislative body in the community. It is also wise to not attempt to represent all religions just to allow religion to be part of a government site.

Government was not established to govern our religious life, only our civilian. By keeping government out of our religious life it gives us the greatest religious freedom possible.

-----

End of story, Joe

As a follow up to yesterday’s post, a federal judge has cleared the way for U. S. Senator Lisa Murkowski to take her seat in the new session of congress that begins January 3, 2011. Murkowski ran as a write-in candidate during the last general election after losing in the primary to fellow republican and Tea Party favorite, Joe Miller.

Miller contested the Alaskan election commissions’ decision to accept write-in votes that were clear as to their intent, if not the correct spelling of Murkowski’s name. After exhausting his challenges in state courts, including the Alaskan Supreme Court, Miller asked a federal court to rule on the election.

Federal District Judge Ralph Beistline released the injunction he had placed on the election. The judge ruled that, "Generally speaking, the Alaska Supreme Court is the final expositor of Alaska law. That must be the case here."

Federal courts have consistently ruled that unless civil rights are violated that evokes the Fourteenth Amendment, elections are a matter for each state to set and arbitrate. The Constitution clearly states that it is up to each state who they send to represent them in congress.

End of story, Joe.

-----

In Alaska, they have the basis for a reality show

Lisa Murkowski, the Republican primary loser in the Alaskan Senate race, decided she wanted to run as a write-in candidate in the general election. Joe Miller, the Republican winner in the primary thought he would only be running against the Democrat. Murkowski won the election as an independent write-in against both the Republican and the Democrat.

Miller is a poor loser. Almost more than two months out, he is still contesting the election. After working his way through the state courts and the state supreme court, Miller is taking his case to federal court. His issue is that he wouldn’t have lost by as many voters in the general election if it weren’t for the state election commission’s decision to count a vote on the write-in portion of the ballet if the voters intention was clear. The state courts gave Murkowski a win with 10,328 votes including the contested ballets. But, Miller says Murkowski won by only 2,169 votes.

Are you confused? Murkowski still wins if Miller wins in Federal Court? There is an important issue here, but Miller isn’t telling the whole truth.

Without being in Miller’s head, it sounds like Miller wants to cut the lead so he can ask for another recount. With only 2,169 votes to overcome, it is possible that he could turn the election around and take the Senate seat away from Murkowski.

But, to the rest of us, there is an even bigger issue here. The Alaskan Election Commission decided before counting the contested ballets, that as long as long as it was clear who the voter intended to vote for, they would count the vote. After reviewing the circumstances, the state courts, including the state supreme court, ruled in favor of the Alaskan Election Commission. This sounds like the hanging “chad” problem from the Bush-Gore election. In that election, voters needed to punch out a hole to cast their vote for a candidate. Some of the “chads” from the punch out were left hanging, so those votes were in question. In this election, the commission decided that even if the name of Murkowski or any other write-in candidate was misspelled, if it looked like one of the names, they would count it.

Mercowski, Murcoowski, Mercowsomething, Mcowskyed and perhaps many other spellings would be accepted by the election commission in Alaska as being for Murkowski. Miller’s beef is that the commission made up a new law with the “as long as it was clear” rule. He says the commission not only over stepped its bounds as defined by law, but didn’t even open up for public comment on the ruling before starting the counting of the contested ballots. Of course, we would still be waiting for the public comment part of the process to be over with even now if the commission had.

More directly stated, the commission has made a ruling on the election that Miller says isn't clearly stated in the election law. There could be a section of the law that gave the power to the commission to make just a ruling, but isn’t clear here. What is important here is the separation of powers and the right of each state to set its own election rules.

As a principle of the Constitution, although never stated used, is the term “separation of powers.” The Alaskan legislature empowered the election commission to make decisions on the voting process. If a candidate has concerns with the results, they can take it to the state courts. It is a challenge of one branch’s authority by another. In this case, if the state legislature, through the election commission, over stepped its bounds, another branch of government can decide if it did, in this case, the state courts. The state courts have done just that. With a small detour here, the courts ruled that the outcome of the election would not have been different even if the commission had made a decision beyond the powers granted to them.

As for taking the case to the federal courts, the Constitution clearly states that elections are a state function. Unless Miller’s rights were violated in a way that would evoke the Fourteenth Amendment, the Federal Court should pass on any review.

Miller was a Tea Party candidate. The Tea Party has strong concerns about the Federal government getting involved in our lives. Yet, as soon as things don’t go Miller’s way, he looks to the Feds to give him help.

This election is over and the challenges need to stop.

-----

Govenment should not be involved in morality

Government has no compelling reason to involved themselves in morality, only the law.

In Auburn Hills, Michigan, Planned Parenthood has purchased a building to convert into a clinic. 60 pro-life advocates attended the Auburn Hills City Council meeting a week ago to express their objections to the possibilty that the city will approve it.  Crossroads Pregnancy Center, Citizens for a Pro-Life Society and many other individuals would like Auburn Hills to prevent it.  Their concern is that Auburn Hills could become an “abortion capital” in the family oriented community.

The Auburn Hills city attorney, Derk Beckerlet, said that the city has no legal grounds to refuse Planned Parenthood’s clinic based solely on the groups abortion operations. He also said that abortion is a federal issue, not the city’s, and that the city council meeting was not the correct forum for debating the issue.

Beckerlet is absolutely correct. The city has no more right to refuse the clinic based on abortion then to disallow a church because of its religion. Or to make a law banning speech based on prior approval.

Government must not involve themselves in the prevailing morality. That isn't its proper role.  By giving government that power, when the prevailing morality shifts the other way, the new morality will impose their own rules.

-----

Applying the Fourteenth Amendment to gun rights may be a difficult victory

The US Supreme Court ruled that rights guaranteed by the constitution apply to not only the federal government but also to state and local governments. The court’s 5-4 decision struck down a City of Chicago law that banned hand gun ownership by private citizens in the city for any reason.

This is a setback to liberals’ misunderstood position in favor of gun control as a way to fight gun violence. The court said that the constitution under the 14th Amendment applies to everyone despite where they may live. As is clearly stated in the Fourteenth amendment the United States can’t “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This includes the right of gun ownership [but not necessarily the possession and use] as granted in the Second Amendment.

Conservatives, a long time supporter of gun ownership rights, are calling this a victory. But, this opens a much wider door for many other things that conservatives will find difficult to tolerate. This decision, because it uses the Fourteenth amendment to apply the Constitution to all levels of government, further supports many of the rights we all agree on. The right of free speech, assembly, protection against self incrimination and the protection of property rights are just a few. All of these freedoms can’t be limited by state laws, because the court has ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment’s intent was to assure that all citizens of the Untied States have equal protection.

This decision could, in the long run, be used to support more controversial issues. Gay rights, marriage, Miranda warning and much more. If this support for the Fourteenth Amendment continues, as it should, states will lose a substantive voice in all of them. States will lose the ability to limit an individual’s rights when those rights come from the Constitution as defined in the Ninth Amendment. This further erodes, as it should, the idea of “States Rights” as a basic understanding of the constitution. It may have been before the Fourteenth Amendment, but not after.

Consider this quote from Legal Information Institute, part of the Cornell School of Law. “If the Court sides with Petitioners Otis McDonald, et al. [as it did], it may reverse the Slaughterhouse line of cases and incorporate the Second Amendment—and possibly the entire Bill of Rights—against the States.” It is clear from the decision of the court and from the view of legal scholars that this case is a good decision for gun rights. But it can also be applied to both the many rights we all accept and those that are being passionately being argued in the community today.

To community members in good standing, this decision fully supports the individual’s right to live in a manner that is consistent with their own beliefs without fear of limits from the community. Unless the individual is engaged in activity that will harm someone or has the clear danger of harm, he or she can do what is best for them.

The community still has a heavy agenda to find a way to curtail gun violence and not limit the rights of individuals in good standing. While this decision may not fully help in that search, the support of the rights of any individual is the support of everyone’s rights.

Many of those rights that are preserved by this decision will help solve the community’s most pressing problems.

-----

There Arizona goes again

There Arizona goes again…


In Arizona, they are proposing a law that would deny birth certificates to children born of parents that are in the country illegally. This is an indirect assault on the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States. It doesn’t specifically deny citizenship, but does prevent a birth certificate from being issued that would be needed to prove that someone was born in the country.

When Arizona passed the last illegal immigration law, directing law enforcement to determine the citizenship of people that are in custody (as it was amended), it brought plenty of attention to the state from both sides of the argument. This one is sure to make things much more complicated for everyone from the hospital that births the child to the federal government.

But, it should still not change anything as far as a child being granted citizenship.

Right now, there are two ways to gain citizenship; you are born here or you are granted citizenship through application. Many feel that just because a child is born in the United States while the mother is in the country illegally, the child should not be given automatic citizenship. But, the Fourteenth Amendment states that children born in the United States are citizens. It 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.” Because a birth certificate will not be issued doesn’t mean the child is not born here. (for more details about why the Fourteenth Amendment was created see blog post, “Citizenship as Birth Right”)

As was the position of the Responsible Community when the previously law was enacted, so it is with this one. The responsibility of citizenship and immigration rest with the federal government. It was given to the national government by the Fourteenth amendment. The lawmakers in Arizona are either making a cheap political statement on the backs of children or are attempting to force the country to address the immigration issue in America. Seems that it is a little of both.

As a country, we may decide to make some changes in the way citizenship is granted. That would take a change in the Fourteenth amendment, or, perhaps a challenge to the interpretation of the amendment by the Supreme Court But, until then, birthright citizenship is there for everyone born in the country.

As a nation of immigrants, we should not change what has made us strong.

-----

Citizenship as a Birthright

Senator Harry Reid (D-Utah) is being quoted as saying that immigration reform is not on the agenda. Well, as soon as a politico says such a thing, it usually means it is.

When immigration does come up again, many will be talking about changing the way citizenship is granted in America. Right now, there are two ways, you are born here or you are granted citizenship through a long application process. Many feel that just because a child is born in the United States while the mother is in the country illegally, the child should not be given automatic citizenship. But, the Fourteenth Amendment states that children born in the United States are citizens. It 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.”

Those opposed to citizenship as a birthright argue that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed only to insure slaves would be citizens. This would deprive the southern states from enacting legislation that would only allow citizenship to those whose birthright goes back many generations. Therefore, preventing many former slaves from voting.

Assuring citizenship to former slaves was important. But, there was something else going on in America at the time. By the end of the Civil War there were large immigrant populations that had arrived over the last 20 years. As chronicled in both, “A Different Mirror” by Ronald Takaki and “The Party of Fear” by David H. Bennett, these immigrant populations were not well liked. One of many reasons is they were having an impact on the politics of the still young country. These populations represented large voting blocks in many northern states.

Before the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was granted by the state you lived in. If states didn’t grant citizenship, chances are you were not a citizen of the country. The southern states knew that all they had to do was pass state laws sharply restricting citizenship to former slaves to prevent them from voting.

This was of great concern to the immigrants in the northern states. Many were born elsewhere, or were the first born here. If the northern states started doing the same thing, many of the new immigrants from European countries could lose their citizenship. So, the northern states supported a clause of the Fourteenth that would automatically granted citizenship to all people born in the country.

As a country, we may decide to make some changes in the way citizenship is granted. That would take a change in the Fourteenth amendment, or, perhaps a challenge to the interpretation of the amendment by the Supreme Court (the subject of another post at a later date). But, until then, birthright citizenship is there for everyone born in the country.

As a nation of immigrants, we should not change what has made us strong.